You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I've used HGTector to look for HGTs in 16 fungal species using the pre-built default database. I was surprised that one of the species, Byssochlamys AF001, had so many more HGTs than any of the others. I copied a table below. Does this seem like it could be real to you or is this some kind of artifact? Could it be caused by not having enough closely related organisms in the database or maybe bad gene predictions from this species?
Thanks,
Brian
# HGTs
Byssochlamys_sp AF001
1156
A_parvisclerotigenus
319
A_parasiticus
290
A_sojae
282
A_arachidicola
272
A_flavus_3357
269
A_oryzae_RIB40
259
A_persii
259
A_minisclerotigenes
241
A_flavus_70
238
A_korhogoensis
159
A_bombycis
133
A_nomius
122
A_westerdijkiae
108
A_steynii
98
A_sclerotiorum
79
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi Qiyun,
I've used HGTector to look for HGTs in 16 fungal species using the pre-built default database. I was surprised that one of the species, Byssochlamys AF001, had so many more HGTs than any of the others. I copied a table below. Does this seem like it could be real to you or is this some kind of artifact? Could it be caused by not having enough closely related organisms in the database or maybe bad gene predictions from this species?
Thanks,
Brian
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: