2.18.19 NapoleonB Annotation Checking & Abstracts

Rationale: Since the genome annotations were completed for NapoleonB, it was possible to check the annotations that had been done. Therefore, it was pertinent to do so to ensure that no incomplete or inaccurate information was being placed in the database. Furthermore, abstracts were also presented to the group to begin to finalize the submission to the Scholar’s Week conference.

Tools/Procedure:

• DNA Master
• HHPred
• PhageNotes
• NCBI Blast
• PhagesDB Blast

In the lab, genes that were listed to have questionable calls were checked over. For my group, genes 50, 1, and 2 were examined. A new gene was added and confirmed with Lathan. After these calls had been made, the abstracts were edited and submitted for the group rather than individually.

Results:

Gene 50 was determined to have been called correctly. Genes 1 & 2 had a large gap which was examined and eventually determined that there was supposed to be a reverse gene to account for the large gap. This gene’s annotation is found below. Apart from these two calls, the genes appeared to have been done correctly.

SSC:372 – 569, CP:No No coding potential was present, SCS:Neither, ST:NA, BLAST-Start:Aligns with circum gp2 NCBI BLAST q1:s1 100 2E-41, Aligns with Tribby gp2 PhagesDB BLAST q1:s1 1 6E-35, Gap:first gene, LO:Yes, RBS:Kibbler7 and Karlin Medium 3.263 -2.059 Yes, F:NKF, SIF-BLAST:NKF, SIF-HHPred:NKF, SIF-Syn:NKF

Conclusions:

Since the genome was checked in part by everyone, it can be assumed that NapoleonB has been fully sequenced and is close to being ready to submit with annotations. The abstract was also successfully assembled, which means that the group is closer to developing Scholar’s Week work.

Next Steps: Scholar’s Week work will be continued and abstracts/posters will continue to be developed throughout the week.