-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
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
prodigal-gv 2.9.0 vs prodigal 2.6.3 #1
Comments
Hi @lonestarling. In that paper Stephen did a manual selection of the genetic code by specifying the translation table and running Prodigal three times (one for each code), in the isolate mode, not metagenome. The goal with prodigal-gv is to automate this process by adding gene models with alternative codes to the metagenome mode. The raw number of proteins is probably not a good comparison here, as standard Prodigal could be calling multiple small fragments for phages with alternate codes. Try to compare the code density of the gene calls generated by both software. |
Hi |
apcamargo
Hi,
First of all, thank you for you excellent tools, i did some test on my virus metagenomic data by prodigal-gv and prodigal 2.6.3 in " p meta", and i finally get 2440739 proteins by prodiga-gv and 2496415 by prodigal 2.6.3, a little bit different in them. acctually, i don't know how to choose them.
And in the study " Metagenomic compendium of 189680 DNA virues from the human gut microbiome" by Stephen Nayfach, they have choosen the code (4) TGA and code(15) TAG and code (90) TAA besides the standard code (11), and then chooe the results accoding the potential score for every predicted gene. but't i haven't understand how to change the code in meta mode. and i don't how how much it changes the outcome in this way compare to the code 11 only.
So can you give me some advice.
Sincerely yours
L
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: