Should EGFR and FOSL1 really be part of GPRs?

[johan-gson]

The following reaction has FOSL1 as GPR:

MAR02116 vitamin D3[c] + H+[i] => H+[m] + vitamin D3[m] ENSG00000175592 (FOSL1)
FOSL1 is part of the FOS/JUN pathway which drives proliferation etc., and is a transcription factor. Does it really
participate in transport of vitamin D3?

The following reaction contains EGFR (ENSG00000146648) in its GPR:
MAR00158 butyryl-CoA[m] + L-carnitine[c] <=> butyryl-CoA[c] + L-carnitine[m] ENSG00000012660 or ENSG00000026652 or ENSG00000100344 or ENSG00000102125 or ENSG00000111684 or ENSG00000123684 or ENSG00000125505 or ENSG00000141446 or ENSG00000143797 or ENSG00000146648 or ENSG00000151093 or ENSG00000160216 or ENSG00000169359 or ENSG00000170522 or ENSG00000171320 or ENSG00000176454 or ENSG00000186792 or ENSG00000197977

EGFR (Epidermic growth factor) is a common cancer driver, and is a receptor connected to cell cycle progression, I doubt it has anything to do with this. There is however an interesting thing in literature: there is something called "estimated glomerular filtration rate" (eGFR) that is used in papers related to L-carnitine, see for example https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7598620/
Could this GPR have be generated by some kind of automated literature search?

I came across these when looking for metabolic cancer targets, were these (not surprisingly since they are involved in cancers) were overexpressed in a cancer setting. They are just not metabolic genes.

Current behavior:

I'm pretty convinced both of these are wrong

Expected feature/value/output:

Remove the genes from the GPRs.

[edkerk]

Both grRules were inherited from HMR (reaction IDs at that time HMR_2116 and HMR_0158), it would not be worth to dig out why these were defined as such, because (a) most likely they were not actively curated anyway; and (b) they are wrong anyway: these are neither enzymes nor regulatory subunits.

Removing these genes indeed makes sense.

[johan-gson]

Agreed. This could be fixed whenever someone is doing some other curation, should be quick to fix then.

[feiranl]

As long as the check is back to normal, we can remove this immediately @JHL-452b.