Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Different results of LithoGenie and FeGenie #7

Open
kodragonP opened this issue May 25, 2022 · 2 comments
Open

Different results of LithoGenie and FeGenie #7

kodragonP opened this issue May 25, 2022 · 2 comments

Comments

@kodragonP
Copy link

I Found that LithoGenie can predict more cyc2 gene than FeGenie. Why? Which one I can believe? Moreover, I found the results of FeGenie were very unstable. I can predict a cyc2_cluster3 from a genome when together with other 10 genomes. However, if I only predict from this only one genome, no cyc2 was reported.

@seanmcallister
Copy link

Arkadiy: Have you looked into this issue with the clustering?

kodragon: The cluster3 hmm of the cyc2 trio is probably the least stable of the three. That particular cluster of the gene tree has lots of deep branches and is not highly supported. This might be one reason it isn't consistent. Likely, the clustering is picking the longest representative, and that one is hitting above the bit score cutoff. When you run the genome individually that was chosen as the representative for the gene cluster, does it pick up the cyc2 cluster 3?

@Arkadiy-Garber
Copy link
Owner

I haven't yet looked into this. I haven't been able to replicate this error on my end.

@kodragonP - iron HMMs from LithoGenie have been deprecated and will be removed shortly. Please use FeGenie for iron gene prediction.

Thanks,
Arkadiy

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants