The gene IDO2 does seem to be important, but you think this isn’t much to do with tryptophan?
I'm definitely not saying that. I'm saying that, if I understand the timeline correctly: Phair/the Ron Davis team noticed that the IDO2 gene might be a potential problem from the severely ill patients study. Phair then came up with the idea that a defective IDO2 might mean that tryptophan isn't getting properly catabolized if the tryptophan levels rise high enough to significantly inhibit the IDO1 enzyme - because there's not a working IDO2 enzyme as a backup. The team then did some tracer experiments that appear to show that indeed (intracellular) tryptophan levels are inappropriately increased and kynurenine decreased just as you'd expect. Bingo! So now they're thinking that the metabolic trap idea (i.e., an inhibited IDO1 with no IDO2 as backup) might very well be correct.
The possible problem, though, is that the Michaelis-Menten chart that Phair presented appears to indicate they may be giving IDO2 a much greater affinity (~200 μM) for tryptophan than what the literature is saying (i.e., ~7000 to 9000 μM). If that's true, then there’s likely no metabolic trap, per se, because even a perfectly working IDO2 enzyme isn't likely to help enough because its ability to catabolize tryptophan is so poor at physiological levels. But like I said previously, maybe I'm misinterpreting something.
IDO2 was only discovered in 2007, and at that time, if I remember correctly, it was thought it basically had the same function as IDO1, i.e., a (redundant) enzyme that catabolizes tryptophan. It's become apparent though, that it's role is much more likely to be immunomodulatory or regulatory (including with respect to IDO1). And that's consistent with its poor enzymatic ability (although it's possible that its true substrate hasn't been determined yet).
So IDO2 might very well be important with respect to tryptophan but, from what I can tell, probably indirectly and not by directly catabolizing it.