SEA-PHAGES | All posts created by scaruso

← previous
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
next →

Link to this post \| posted 20 Aug, 2018 17:22
scaruso	David Bollivar This is a tougher one. Again, just my two cents. The evidence points to this having a LysM domain, but that can be a little misleading because the LysM domain essentially is a peptidoglycan binding domain. Your CDD hit is just to that part of the predicted protein. Unfortunately, there is not an approved function with just the LysM domain, so the question is do you have enough evidence for the endolysin part. There are suggestions (the LD transpeptidase hit for example) but I would suggest it is not strong enough to make this call. I personally would leave this NKF. I can buy that. Thank you for your second look. Steve

Link to this post | posted 20 Aug, 2018 17:22

David Bollivar
This is a tougher one. Again, just my two cents. The evidence points to this having a LysM domain, but that can be a little misleading because the LysM domain essentially is a peptidoglycan binding domain. Your CDD hit is just to that part of the predicted protein. Unfortunately, there is not an approved function with just the LysM domain, so the question is do you have enough evidence for the endolysin part. There are suggestions (the LD transpeptidase hit for example) but I would suggest it is not strong enough to make this call. I personally would leave this NKF.

I can buy that. Thank you for your second look.
Steve

Posted in: Functional Annotation → WheeHeim LysM

Link to this post \| posted 19 Aug, 2018 22:47
scaruso	Thank you. And thank you for the tip about GenemarkS on PDB, that's very useful. Steve

Posted in: Functional Annotation → WheeHeim Glycosyltransferase

Link to this post \| posted 19 Aug, 2018 22:45
scaruso	David Bollivar Steve, I have yet to look at the function aspect, but I would recommend you use the GenemarkS that you can run from phagesdb to look for coding potential. It has much more information to offer than what I see uploaded to PECAAN. Dave I'll check it out. Thank you. Steve

Posted in: Functional Annotation → WheeHeim Glycosyltransferase

Link to this post \| posted 19 Aug, 2018 22:27
scaruso	I am looking at WheeHeim_12322-12990, currently gp25 in PECAAN, and want to get a second opinion on a function call on it (an another gene in the previous post) As mentioned previously, WheeHeim is a singleton, and so is pretty weird looking. It has virtually no useful GM_Web coding potential, for example. Only three genes are in occupied phams, the rest are orphams. There are strong BlastP, HHPred, and CCD hits for lytic transglycoslyase and lytic murein transglycoslyase. That's certainly in line with an endolysin, and there are very. very poor hits to endolysin as well. The safest call would, of course be glycosyltransferase. But when I was searching in the HHPred results, one of the many lysozyme and other hits looked suggestive of lysin B. Could this be lysin B right after the Endolysin, LysM (lysin A) called two genes 5'? Any thoughts would be appreciated. 84Kb

Link to this post | posted 19 Aug, 2018 22:27

scaruso

I am looking at WheeHeim_12322-12990, currently gp25 in PECAAN, and want to get a second opinion on a function call on it (an another gene in the previous post)

As mentioned previously, WheeHeim is a singleton, and so is pretty weird looking. It has virtually no useful GM_Web coding potential, for example. Only three genes are in occupied phams, the rest are orphams.

There are strong BlastP, HHPred, and CCD hits for lytic transglycoslyase and lytic murein transglycoslyase. That's certainly in line with an endolysin, and there are very. very poor hits to endolysin as well. The safest call would, of course be glycosyltransferase.

But when I was searching in the HHPred results, one of the many lysozyme and other hits looked suggestive of lysin B. Could this be lysin B right after the Endolysin, LysM (lysin A) called two genes 5'?

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Posted in: Functional Annotation → WheeHeim Glycosyltransferase

Link to this post \| posted 19 Aug, 2018 22:18
scaruso	I am looking at WheeHeim_11390-12103, currently gp23 in PECAAN, and want to get a second opinion on a function call on it (an another gene in the next post) WheeHeim is a singleton, and so is pretty weird looking. It has virtually no useful GM_Web coding potential, for example. Only three genes are in occupied phams, the rest are orphams. The BlastP and HHPred alignments for this gene are poor hits for 'endolysin, LysM-like,' but the CDD result is much stronger, something I rarely get to use. I think that makes the poor BlastP and HHPred hits more interesting and supportive. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Edited 19 Aug, 2018 22:50 88Kb

Link to this post | posted 19 Aug, 2018 22:18

scaruso

I am looking at WheeHeim_11390-12103, currently gp23 in PECAAN, and want to get a second opinion on a function call on it (an another gene in the next post)

WheeHeim is a singleton, and so is pretty weird looking. It has virtually no useful GM_Web coding potential, for example. Only three genes are in occupied phams, the rest are orphams.

The BlastP and HHPred alignments for this gene are poor hits for 'endolysin, LysM-like,' but the CDD result is much stronger, something I rarely get to use. I think that makes the poor BlastP and HHPred hits more interesting and supportive.

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Edited 19 Aug, 2018 22:50

Posted in: Functional Annotation → WheeHeim LysM

Link to this post \| posted 16 Mar, 2018 21:56
scaruso	For example, the tRNA evidence is stripped out of a PECAAN notes file, as is the SIF: category headers, and the Syn category in particular. As I am using it for post annotation QC, I am going to try it and send it in, barring direction on here otherwise. For what it's worth, PECAAN people: what a nice system! I don't know that I want to use it for the original annotations, I want the students to dig in a bit. But it sure makes it easier for me to QC six of them prior to sending them in to PITT during Spring Break. Steve

Link to this post | posted 16 Mar, 2018 21:56

scaruso

For example, the tRNA evidence is stripped out of a PECAAN notes file, as is the SIF: category headers, and the Syn category in particular. As I am using it for post annotation QC, I am going to try it and send it in, barring direction on here otherwise.

For what it's worth, PECAAN people: what a nice system! I don't know that I want to use it for the original annotations, I want the students to dig in a bit. But it sure makes it easier for me to QC six of them prior to sending them in to PITT during Spring Break.

Steve

Posted in: Notes and Final Files → Trying out PECAN

Link to this post \| posted 14 Mar, 2018 20:42
scaruso	Hello, I am considering trying out PECAAN for in-house QC prior to sending in the files this year. I noticed that the notes produced by PECAAN are quite detailed, but don't match the new format exactly. If we use PECAAN, does that mean we should not use the PECAAN notes, or are they an acceptable alternative? Thanks, Steve Edited 14 Mar, 2018 20:42

Posted in: Notes and Final Files → Trying out PECAN

Link to this post \| posted 02 Mar, 2018 16:50
scaruso	Well, I inadvertently expanded it to other clusters that are missing them, I apologize. But it is an interesting problem we have run into. We didn't see them in our BG phage, and haven't found them in any of our BI(2 or 4) phages. Steve Edited 02 Mar, 2018 16:58

Posted in: Cluster B Annotation Tips → Tail assembly chaperones?

Link to this post \| posted 01 Mar, 2018 22:31
scaruso	We have looked very closely on all our Strep. phages (BG, BH, BI, etc.), and couldn't find them. I'm glad it's not just us. But we'll keep looking!

Posted in: Cluster B Annotation Tips → Tail assembly chaperones?

Link to this post \| posted 23 Feb, 2018 19:52
scaruso	I was able to use it today. Steve

Posted in: DNA Master → Generating GenBank files

← previous
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
next →

Recent Activity

All posts created by scaruso