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

pro phage detection #73

Open
mult1fractal opened this issue May 24, 2020 · 6 comments
Open

pro phage detection #73

mult1fractal opened this issue May 24, 2020 · 6 comments
Assignees
Labels
enhancement New feature or request Priority LOW

Comments

@mult1fractal
Copy link
Collaborator

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0223364

@mult1fractal mult1fractal added enhancement New feature or request Priority LOW labels May 24, 2020
@mult1fractal mult1fractal added this to the v0.8 milestone May 24, 2020
@mult1fractal mult1fractal self-assigned this May 24, 2020
@replikation
Copy link
Owner

see also #11

@mshamash
Copy link

Some suggestions for milestone v0.9 prophage prediction:

Re. VirSorter: important to include only category 4 and 5 predictions, not 6. Similar to lytic phages with categories 1 and 2 being best "hits" while category 3 is likely to include many false positives (as per original VirSorter publication).

Since some tools "die a bit" when you include a full bacterial genome (2Mb++ in size), perhaps a warning can be issued to the user if any input files/contigs are that large? WtP could suggest that the user run it again with the corresponding flag(s) to deactivate those tools. I believe that allowing a bunch of bacterial genomes or bacterial metagenomic bins to be used as input is very useful for predicting prophages en masse for a given dataset.

I'll update this comment if I think of anything else, but this is my feedback for now.

@hoelzer
Copy link
Collaborator

hoelzer commented Jul 14, 2020

Yes, category 4 and 5!

In this context, it might be also interesting to note that there was a bug in VirSorter predicting prophages that are actually longer than the input contig:
simroux/VirSorter#68

It is fixed (in the master branch of VS I guess, but likely not in the current release/docker/bioconda.)

@mshamash
Copy link

mshamash commented Jul 14, 2020

Yes, category 4 and 5!

In this context, it might be also interesting to note that there was a bug in VirSorter predicting prophages that are actually longer than the input contig:
simroux/VirSorter#68

It is fixed (in the master branch of VS I guess, but likely not in the current release/docker/bioconda.)

Yeah I always use the master branch of VS, since I think the docker/bioconda builds are a bit outdated. Not sure if that's something that can be done feasibly with Nextflow...

There's also VirSorter2 which may be coming out soon? https://github.com/jiarong/VirSorter2
Although prophage prediction has been really hit or miss with it thus far, I imagine they're optimizing it for lytic phage detection first.

@hoelzer
Copy link
Collaborator

hoelzer commented Jul 14, 2020

True, it's possible to build an own docker image of the current VS master for WtP... but this @replikation and @mult1fractal have to decide ;)

Ah and thanks for the link to VS2! I was aware that there will be a version 2 soonish but did not know about this code repository.

@replikation
Copy link
Owner

@mshamash identification tools that die on the input data will be terminated and automatically excluded from the results and figures. So its more annoying than critical as the workflow continues without that data.

@replikation replikation removed this from the v0.9 fastq milestone Sep 30, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request Priority LOW
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants