ACIN1
- UniProt: Q9UKV3 · batch: proteostasis-pr-1217 · review status: COMPLETE
- PN placement:
Autophagy-Lysosome Pathway → Autophagosome closure maturation and lysosome fusion → "Specific function in autophagosome maturation and lysosome fusion unknown"(1 row, ALP branch) - PN-node mapping: leaf group =
no_mapping("unknown/residual" bucket); parent class =context_only/too_broad_to_propagate→ GO:0016236 macroautophagy; branch =no_mapping. No GO propagates to ACIN1 from PN.
Consistency (deep research ↔ review YAML ↔ PN ↔ mapping): Consistent, and the review handled the tension well. The human review's core functions are RNA binding in the RNPS1–SAP18–ACIN1 ASAP complex (GO:0061574) / EJC-associated splicing (GO:0008380) and caspase-activated apoptotic chromatin condensation (GO:0030263). The PN row instead places ACIN1 in the ALP branch on the strength of Drosophila Acinus basal-autophagy work. The review's description and a suggested_question explicitly name this divergence and conclude human evidence supports RNA processing/apoptosis over a direct autophagy role.
Does the PN taxonomy tell a story GO misses? (NEW-annotation pressure): Yes — PN asserts a candidate conserved autophagosome-maturation role that is absent from human GOA. The review correctly does not mint a NEW autophagy term (proposed_new_terms: []); instead it captures the PN story as a suggested_question (is the Drosophila basal-autophagy role conserved?) and two suggested_experiments (autophagic-flux assay; RNA-target mapping). This is the right altitude: PN flags a hypothesis, not a GO-annotatable human fact. No new annotation warranted now.
Does PN inclusion change mapping strategy? No. ACIN1's own PN node is the residual "function unknown" group → correctly no_mapping; the class is correctly held at context_only/too_broad_to_propagate. The PN authors themselves signalled uncertainty (the group label literally says function "unknown"), so the conservative no-propagation call is well-aligned. ACIN1 is a good negative control for "membership ≠ GO assertion."
Evidence alignment (did PN and the review pick the same papers?): No — deliberately divergent. PN cites two Drosophila papers (Nagy et al., acinus endocytic/autophagic trafficking; Cdk5/Ser437 eLife). The review's supported_by cites none of these; it relies on human ASAP/EJC/apoptosis literature (PMID:12665594, 20966198, 16314458, 22388736, 27365209, 10490026). The divergence is itself the finding: PN's evidence is orthology-based and the human review intentionally does not import it as human evidence.
Verdict: Fully consistent; exemplary handling of an orthology-driven PN inclusion. No edits needed. Template/positive-control case for the phase-1 review.