Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

archeal genomes #48

Closed
Thexiyang opened this issue May 17, 2021 · 4 comments
Closed

archeal genomes #48

Thexiyang opened this issue May 17, 2021 · 4 comments
Labels
question Further information is requested

Comments

@Thexiyang
Copy link

Thexiyang commented May 17, 2021

Does this tool also work for archeal genomes or metagenome-assembled genomes? Thanks!

@oschwengers
Copy link
Owner

oschwengers commented May 17, 2021

Actually, Bakta was designed and developed to annotate isolated bacterial genomes. In particular, the database comprises bacterial protein coding genes, only. Also, there are currently no options/parameters to surpass archaeal taxonomic information to 3rd party tools of the workflow, e.g. tRNAScan-SE.

Regarding metagenomes:
For sure, a very interesting question. I haven't tried it yet but I'll put it on the list and will look into this.

@oschwengers oschwengers added the question Further information is requested label May 17, 2021
@oschwengers oschwengers pinned this issue May 31, 2021
@oschwengers
Copy link
Owner

A quick follow-up:
Yes, Bakta works absolutely fine on bacterial metagenome-assembled genomes. Actually, due to its large and taxonomically untargeted database, it has a competitive edge compared to Prokka.

@richardstoeckl
Copy link

Actually, Bakta was designed and developed to annotate isolated bacterial genomes. In particular, the database comprises bacterial protein coding genes, only. Also, there are currently no options/parameters to surpass archaeal taxonomic information to 3rd party tools of the workflow, e.g. tRNAScan-SE.

Since bakta now has several huge advantages compared to prokka (e.g. pyrodigal and circos plots), is there any chance for an archaea-mode in the future, or is this design decision final?

@oschwengers oschwengers modified the milestone: v1.6.1 Dec 1, 2022
@oschwengers
Copy link
Owner

oschwengers commented Dec 1, 2022

Hey @richardstoeckl, thanks for this follow-up question which gets asked more and more often. I totally see the point in this - I just haven't come up with a decision whether it's better to either add an archaea mode to Bakta or to start a new distinct project, maybe archa?

A distinct project would be highly-inspired by Bakta itself sharing a lot of code but would provide room for important distinctions we might have to make, both now and in the future. However, this would induce a lot of code duplication which could only be mitigated and handled by starting a 3rd library project.

In conclusion, yes there is definitely a chance for a "bakta-like" archaea annotation solution - I'm just not yet quite sure what might be the best way how to do it. For now, I rather tend to the 2nd idea of a distinct project.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
question Further information is requested
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants