-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 58
New issue
Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? # to your account
archeal genomes #48
Comments
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: |
A quick follow-up: |
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? |
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. |
Does this tool also work for archeal genomes or metagenome-assembled genomes? Thanks!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: