-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 55
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
archeal genomes #48
Comments
Actually, Bakta was designed and developed to annotate isolated bacterial genomes. In particular, the database comprises bacterial protein coding genes, only. Also, there are currently no options/parameters to surpass archaeal taxonomic information to 3rd party tools of the workflow, e.g. tRNAScan-SE. Regarding metagenomes: |
A quick follow-up: |
Since bakta now has several huge advantages compared to prokka (e.g. pyrodigal and circos plots), is there any chance for an archaea-mode in the future, or is this design decision final? |
Hey @richardstoeckl, thanks for this follow-up question which gets asked more and more often. I totally see the point in this - I just haven't come up with a decision whether it's better to either add an archaea mode to Bakta or to start a new distinct project, maybe archa? A distinct project would be highly-inspired by Bakta itself sharing a lot of code but would provide room for important distinctions we might have to make, both now and in the future. However, this would induce a lot of code duplication which could only be mitigated and handled by starting a 3rd library project. In conclusion, yes there is definitely a chance for a "bakta-like" archaea annotation solution - I'm just not yet quite sure what might be the best way how to do it. For now, I rather tend to the 2nd idea of a distinct project. |
Does this tool also work for archeal genomes or metagenome-assembled genomes? Thanks!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: