Rationale:

The genome was looked over to make sure that every gap was accounted for in order to make sure each function was found. To check, databases such as NCBI, PhagesDB, GeneMark, and Phamerator were used to recheck the annotation for the genes. Also, an introduction to research posters was made.

Results:

• FIrst, the entire genome was looked over as a class to check and make sure that each gene reached it’s longest open reading frame.
• While the class skimmed over the genes, several genes had massive gaps between them and the previous genes which led to the genes being checked with the help of the databases to make sure that it was the best open reading frame.
• After the genome was checked and corrected, an introduction to posters was made which discussed the importance of small, certain aspects on the overall presentation.
• The class divided into the groups and discussed which aspect of the posters was the most important and what final preparations needed to be made before the posters were made.

Conclusion:

As a class, the genome was looked over to make sure that gaps were covered and some discussion occurred as to why some gaps could not be covered. Along with that, the small details of symmetry and figures in posters were discussed in class. Groups from previous class rejoined to discuss the importance of certain aspects of the poster.

Future:

The class may be divided into groups for individual research projects.

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.