February 22

Evaluating NapoleonB’s Gene 96 and Group’s Final Abstract (2/18/19)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Rationale:

The purpose of the lab was to revise NapoleonB’s genes, and to create a final abstract.  

Tools:  

  • DNA Master 
  • GeneMark  
  • NCBI Blast 
  • PhagesDB Blast 
  • Phamerater 

Procedure: 

  1. Groups were assigned for annotations and abstract.  
  2. NapoleonB’s Gene 96 Annotation was re-evaluated because of a large gap between gene 95 and 96.  
  3. Coding potential between gene 95 and 96 was viewed and evaluated.  
  4. A place which appeared to have a high coding potential on GeneMark was added to DNA Master as a test gene.  
  5. Results were collected with the product of the test gene on PhagesDB and NCBI Blast.  
  6. Phamerater was used to compare different AM cluster phages.  

Results: 

The results on PhagesDB and NCBI Blast displayed that there were no hits for the particular coding region, which was a reverse ORF. Therefore, the annotation of Gene 96 was not changed.  

Conclusion:

More knowledge was acquired on DNA Master about how to test gaps and see if there was a hit. Even though GeneMark displayed a high coding potential on the graph, the results displayed no hits.  

Future Work:

Next class we will re-evaluate the genes and recheck the annotations of the genes.  


Posted February 22, 2019 by sona_subramanian1 in category Sona Subramanian

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*