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 Potential feature deletion in Ibouu (cluster F)
allie.c.smith@ttu.edu posted in Potential feature deletion in Ibouu (cluster F)
Debbie Jacobs-Sera posted in Potential feature deletion in Ibouu (cluster F)
allie.c.smith@ttu.edu posted in Potential feature deletion in Ibouu (cluster F)
All posts created by brueschhoff
Link to this post | posted 18 Sep, 2025 15:53 | |
---|---|
|
Thanks Debbie, Very helpful. Yes, these would be phages not posted to phagesDB. I appreciate your input! Beth |
Link to this post | posted 18 Sep, 2025 15:14 | |
---|---|
|
Greetings, We were wondering, if we had a surplus number of phage that are not purified, is there a good time or way to preserve those to be processed in the future? Thank you, Beth Rueschhoff Indiana University Southeast |
Link to this post | posted 28 Mar, 2024 15:58 | |
---|---|
|
I have a question. In DoobyDoo, Feature 65 (on Phamerator), stop 45445, has some of the features of a RecA, but not all of them. Therefore, I do not believe we should call this a RecA recombinase. On this powerpoint, our cluster (DV), falls under the category of not having a RecA recombinase but calling it anyway. Does this mean that we should not call it a RecA recombinase, or that we should call it a RecA, even though it is not a true RecA recombinase? Thank you, Beth Rueschhoff Indiana University Southeast |
Link to this post | posted 23 Feb, 2024 16:36 | |
---|---|
|
Thank you so much to both of you for your help. Very interesting! |
Link to this post | posted 22 Feb, 2024 15:59 | |
---|---|
|
Sure, Sorry about that! We are annotating DoobyDoo and the phamerator feature number is 10. The stop codon is 8910. |
Link to this post | posted 21 Feb, 2024 15:31 | |
---|---|
|
Greetings, We are investigating the function of a protein with sequence: MEYMPADLARTLSAMARGTHNEICGFILDDWTLISVRNVAKLPTISFEMSMNAILGAVEMAAASGREILGTYHSHPGGSTEPSETDLHGWPRFIDGSYARYWVVTGDTVREFERTGEGSEIGFQLIHSIGIGVVVKRPEEGMDQSVPEDZ It belongs to a pham that indicates it is a metalloprotease. BLAST Hits indicate either a tail protein or a metalloprotease. If we look at HHPRED, many hits come as a metalloprotease, but without the HEXXH motif. Rather it has a JAMM/MPN Zinc Binding domain. Should we annotate this as a metalloprotease, even without the HEXXH motif? Thank you for your assistance! Beth Rueschhoff Indiana University Southeast |
Link to this post | posted 30 Mar, 2023 16:42 | |
---|---|
|
debbie Hi Debbie, A student just tried this and got the same error. It only seems to happen on one particular feature. |
Link to this post | posted 30 Mar, 2023 15:51 | |
---|---|
|
Greetings! Sometimes, when reblasting a gene after changing the start site, students have been getting a "range check error." This sounds vaguely familiar, but I don't remember what causes this error or what to do when they get it. Any guidance is appreciated. Thank you, Beth |