In silico analysis of the genomes

MD Marion Dalmasso
RS Ronan Strain
HN Horst Neve
CF Charles M. A. P. Franz
FC Fabien J. Cousin
RR R. Paul Ross
CH Colin Hill
request Request a Protocol
ask Ask a question
Favorite

Protein-encoding open reading frames (ORFs) were predicted using Glimmer [30]. Initial functional annotation of the ORFs and percentage amino acid identities were determined using BLASTP[31] and RAST server [32]. Transfer RNAs (tRNAs) were screened in the genomes using ARAGORN [33].

The BRIG software [34] was used for genome comparison of phage genomes which gave the best hit scores using BLASTP. Consequently, ɸAPCEc01 genome was compared to E. coli phages T4, vB_EcoM_JS09, RB27, vB_EcoM-VR7, Av-05, HX01, vB_EcoM_PhAPEC2, and RB69 (GenBank numbers NC_000866, NC_024124, NC_025448, NC_014792, KM190144, NC_018855, NC_024794, and NC_004928, respectively), and to Shigella phage Shf125875 (GenBank KM407600). ɸAPCEc02 genome was compared to E. coli phages rv5, 2 JES-2013, vB_EcoM_FFH2, and vB_EcoM-FV3 (GenBank numbers NC_011041, NC_022323, NC_024134, and NC_019517, respectively). ɸAPCEc03 genome was compared to E. coli phages T5, bV_EcoS_AKFV33, DT57C, DT571/2, and vB_EcoS_FFH1 (GenBank numbers NC_005859, NC_017969, KM979354, KM979355, and KJ190157, respectively), to Salmonella phages SPC35, Shivani, and Stitch (GenBank numbers HQ406778, KP143763, and KM236244, respectively), and to Yersinia phage phiR201 (GenBank HE956708).

Do you have any questions about this protocol?

Post your question to gather feedback from the community. We will also invite the authors of this article to respond.

0/150

tip Tips for asking effective questions

+ Description

Write a detailed description. Include all information that will help others answer your question including experimental processes, conditions, and relevant images.

post Post a Question
0 Q&A