Rationale:

Groups were made and assigned to correct and go over the assigned gene to make sure that there were no mistakes in the annotation. Also, the groups were assigned to finalize an abstract through the addition of each group members abstract into the final abstract.

Tools:

• Personal Computational Device
• DNA Master
• NCBI
• PhagesDB
• Phamerator

Results:

• The group was assigned gene 96 and to elongate the gene was much as possible to obtain a better reading for the function.
• Different frames were tried out to determine if the function changed based on the results from the coding potential on GeneMark.
• One coding potential was the best within the frame; however, it overlapped with the next gene.
• After it was decided that no other gene was able to fill the whole coding potential, the original gene was kept.
• The original gene was kept and the abstracts were finalized by the incorporation of every group members part of their abstract into the final one.

Conclusion:

Groups were created to correct the genes which were assigned. The group was told to look over the large gap between gene 95 and 96 and to determine if the gap can be coded with the addition of new genes. New genes were created in the forward and the reverse in order to achieve the best coding potential, but it was later decided that the original gene had the best coding potential. Also, abstracts were revised to create a final abstract with the abstracts of all the group members.

Future:

Questions for the individual projects will be decided along with the structure of the poster.