Unconfigured Ad

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • reema
    Member
    • Feb 2014
    • 27

    #1

    De-novo assembly PASA annotation

    Hello Everyone,

    We have recently generated two de-novo transcriptomics assembly for two different but related species. These new transcripts seem quite good on the basis of quality measurements, completeness and alignment with the previously sequenced genome and annotation. We were able to pick up novel genes and previously unannotated transcripts. In order to pick the alternate spliced transcripts we are currently trying running PASA (Program to Assemble Spliced Alignment) annotation.

    After PASA annotation, when I made a comparison between trinity transcripts, already existing annotation and PASA annotation in IGB. I find out a case where trinity transcripts fully supported by previously curated annotation as well as the RNASeq data, but no PASA annotation. PASA annotation only shows one fragment, rest of the parts not even present in the valid and failed .gff3 file generated by PASA [Figure]. This leads to few questions - for which I don’t have any answer. Here are my questions:
    1. Why there is this difference in the PASA annotation- when there is already manual curation and RNAseq depth evidences are present? And which one is correct?
    2. PASA annotation using blat and gmap for the alignment of transcripts to the genome. And we have also used blat to align the transcript to the genome. Then why there is different in two blat alignment?


    Data used for Transcriptomics assembly = 100 bp Paired end reads, non-strand specific

    Attached figure description:-

    Dark Blue colour = New assembled transcript annotation [this is the annotation generated by aligning assembled transcripts with the genome using blat].
    Orange = existing curated annotation.
    Red = PASA annotation
    Blue colours = shows valid alignment annotation for blat and gmap respectively.
    Read Depth = Green for control and Dark red = Knock-out

    Figure http://www.compbio.dundee.ac.uk/user/rsingh/Figure.jpeg

    I am very much looking forward for the reply. Any suggestions/view would be very helpful.

    Many Thanks,
    Reema,
  • reema
    Member
    • Feb 2014
    • 27

    #2
    Problem solved. For solution please see https://www.biostars.org/p/133348/

    Comment

    Latest Articles

    Collapse

    • kinpict.com
      Reply to 16S/ITS Profiling vs. Shotgun Metagenomics: What Changes in Your Workflow?
      by kinpict.com
      The part about this topic feels surprisingly grounded, and the details on the page is the bit that made me slow down. I’d keep <a href="https://kinpict.com/">ai family photo generator</a> bookmarked for later.
      Today, 06:37 PM
    • SEQadmin2
      16S/ITS Profiling vs. Shotgun Metagenomics: What Changes in Your Workflow?
      by SEQadmin2





      NGS has revolutionized clinical microbiology by offering new ways to identify and surveil pathogens without prior knowledge of the target. One popular approach is 16S rRNA and ITS amplicon sequencing, which targets specific microbial markers. But studies are increasingly incorporating shotgun metagenomics, a technique that sequences all DNA from a sample without targeting specific microbial markers. This approach allows more detailed taxonomic classification,...
      10-30-2026, 06:46 AM

    ad_right_rmr

    Collapse

    News

    Collapse

    Topics Statistics Last Post
    Started by SEQadmin2, 11-12-2026, 07:59 AM
    0 responses
    27 views
    0 reactions
    Last Post SEQadmin2  
    Started by SEQadmin2, 11-05-2026, 09:25 AM
    0 responses
    35 views
    0 reactions
    Last Post SEQadmin2  
    Started by SEQadmin2, 11-03-2026, 11:54 AM
    2 responses
    56 views
    0 reactions
    Last Post kinpict.com  
    Started by SEQadmin2, 10-28-2026, 09:57 AM
    0 responses
    175 views
    0 reactions
    Last Post SEQadmin2  
    Working...