Welcome to the forums at seaphages.org. Please feel free to ask any questions related to the SEA-PHAGES program. Any logged-in user may post new topics and reply to existing topics. If you'd like to see a new forum created, please contact us using our form or email us at info@seaphages.org.
Recent Activity
cdshaffer posted in Whole phage starterator reports
Debbie Jacobs-Sera posted in frameshifts
uOttawaPHAGE posted in frameshifts
Dan Russell posted in Congrats to Steve Caruso and Beth Wilkes — 2025 ASM Outstanding Instructor Award, Honorable Mention
ACMPhageHunters posted in Clarification Question About HNH Endonuclease Function Determination in view of hits to the Ref Sequences
Gene or not a gene? MrMiyagi
| Link to this post | posted 30 Apr, 2020 03:12 | |
|---|---|
|
Dear Phage hunters, I am strongly inclined to deleting reverse gene 36 in phage MrMiyagi (SSC: 33325-33185 reverse, RBS z=2.o12, Fs =-5.0722), but perhaps a second opinion might help before I pull the trigger, since this is an orpham with not other data. Here’s the deal. It was called by GM, but not GM. No hits in phagesDb, but Blast via DNA master shows a hit at “extracellular solute-binding protein, NCBI, Roseovarius sp., WP_138933805, 58.70%, e-value 2.24 (13.3% similarity; e-value not significant; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/protein/WP_138933805.1/). NB. Roseovarius is a genus of the Rhodobacteraceae. No coding potential in both GeneMark (smeg) & TB, but there is atypical CD in GeneMarkS. This "gene" is in a large gap between forward genes, and I know it is not common for phages to switch between forward and reverse genes. What is your take on this? Is atypical coding potential ever acceptable to be used? see attachment. Thanks! Fred |
79Kb| Link to this post | posted 30 Apr, 2020 09:31 | |
|---|---|
|
Fred, I too would be inclined to delete this gene. debbie |
| Link to this post | posted 04 May, 2020 03:06 | |
|---|---|
|
|
Thank you Debbie! Fred |