[maker-devel] Alternative splicing options

[Carson Holt]

I'd like to add that alternate splice forms will be generated off of the
mutually exclusive EST evidence, so how well it performs as well as whether
or not it can even generates other splice forms will depend entirely on the
quality of your EST evidence.

--Carson


From:  Daniel Ence <dence at genetics.utah.edu>
Date:  Friday, May 23, 2014 at 8:55 AM
To:  Felipe Barreto <fbarreto at ucsd.edu>
Cc:  MAKER group <maker-devel at yandell-lab.org>
Subject:  Re: [maker-devel] Alternative splicing options

Hi Felipe, 

The alternative splice option is full-developed and functional option in
MAKER. What it does is tell MAKER to consider gene models with mutually
exclusive evidence. For example, if there are two models at a locus and
evidence that supports one exon in one model and a different exon in another
model, both those models might make it into the final geneset.

>From the workflow you described, I think you'd have to redo only the fourth
and final round of MAKER annotation. As a general principle for trying out
new options on your annotations, I'd recommend choosing a big scaffold,
running it with alt_splice=1, and seeing how you like the results.

~Daniel



Daniel Ence
Graduate Student
dence at genetics.utah.edu
Eccles Institute of Human Genetics
University of Utah
15 North 2030 East, Room 2100
Salt Lake City, UT 84112-5330

On May 22, 2014, at 10:13 PM, Felipe Barreto <fbarreto at ucsd.edu>
 wrote:

> Hi, all, 
> 
> I just finished a fourth and final iterative round with Maker, training
> predictors in between, and I am very happy with the results.  What I would
> like to try now is to annotate alternative splicing variants, and I know the
> ctrl file has the alt_splice option.
> However, I am intrigued by the lack of information regarding this option.  I
> could not find many discussions in this group, and most genome publications
> using Maker are unclear about whether they annotated alternative transcrips,
> so my guess is they didn't.
> So I was wondering whether there is a reason for that.  Is that function not
> well developed in Maker?  Should I stay away from it?
> 
> Assuming it is OK to give it a try (provided I don't get discouraged here),
> what is the best approach to take, considering I already obtained what I
> considered is a solid set of gene models after four rounds of annotation?
> Should I start over by turning on alt_splice, and training gene predictors
> from those outputs?  Or would it be appropriate to simply repeat my latest
> round, changing only alt_splice=1?
> 
> 
> Thanks for any help.  I can see the light at the end of the tunnel!
> 
> Felipe
> 
> -- 
> Felipe Barreto
> Post-doctoral Scholar
> Scripps Institution of Oceanography
> University of California, San Diego
> La Jolla, CA 92093
> _______________________________________________
> maker-devel mailing list
> maker-devel at box290.bluehost.com
> http://box290.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/maker-devel_yandell-lab.org

_______________________________________________ maker-devel mailing list
maker-devel at box290.bluehost.com
http://box290.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/maker-devel_yandell-lab.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://yandell-lab.org/pipermail/maker-devel_yandell-lab.org/attachments/20140523/8ae92301/attachment-0001.html>