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

Compare SignalP and Phobius (try to get better coverage of transit peptides and signal peptides) #1196

Open
ValWood opened this issue Aug 6, 2024 · 6 comments

Comments

@ValWood
Copy link
Member

ValWood commented Aug 6, 2024

Once
#1195

done, compare
signalP (
Phobius (could use the InterPRoAPI for this)
DeepSig?
and decide thresholds to use to get best coverage.

We still have lots of signal peptides and transit peptides that are not found

Any other tools that could be included?

@ValWood
Copy link
Member Author

ValWood commented Aug 9, 2024

Wen I run jackhmmer I get a signal peptide from phobius for https://www.pombase.org/gene/SPBC1E8.03c
(I think this is mainly were I am seeing them).
We don't have this from phobius in Pombase. So we need to find out what cut off InterPro uses.....

@ValWood ValWood changed the title Compare SignalP and Phobius Compare SignalP and Phobius (try to get better coverage of transsit peptides and gignal peptides) Sep 3, 2024
@ValWood
Copy link
Member Author

ValWood commented Sep 3, 2024

SignalP:

One of the most widely used tools for signal peptide prediction.
SignalP 5.0, the latest version, utilizes deep learning techniques to improve accuracy.
It can differentiate between three types of signal peptides: Sec/SPI (bacterial), Sec/SPII (lipoprotein), and Tat/SPI (twin-arginine translocation).
Phobius:

Integrates signal peptide prediction with topology prediction.
Useful for distinguishing between signal peptides and transmembrane regions.
DeepSig:

Uses deep learning methods to predict signal peptides.
Claims to offer improved performance over traditional methods like SignalP.

Maybe we should also try DeepSig?

@kimrutherford kimrutherford changed the title Compare SignalP and Phobius (try to get better coverage of transsit peptides and gignal peptides) Compare SignalP and Phobius (try to get better coverage of transsit peptides and signal peptides) Oct 13, 2024
@ValWood ValWood changed the title Compare SignalP and Phobius (try to get better coverage of transsit peptides and signal peptides) Compare SignalP and Phobius (try to get better coverage of transit peptides and signal peptides) Jan 14, 2025
@ValWood
Copy link
Member Author

ValWood commented Jan 14, 2025

So
i) what do we use for signal peptides at the moment?
ii) Is this page. displaying correctly ? https://www.pombase.org/term/SO:0000418 (I can access evidence codes/source)
iii) I thought we had more than 366 signal peptides?

kimrutherford added a commit to pombase/pombase-config that referenced this issue Feb 10, 2025
@kimrutherford
Copy link
Member

i) what do we use for signal peptides at the moment?

We get 214-ish from UniProt (via pombe-embl/external_data/uniprot_data_from_api.tsv) and the rest are loaded from pombe-embl/supporting_files/manual_so_term_annotations.tsv. Most of the manual annotations used to be in the contig files.

ii) Is this page. displaying correctly ?

Sorry! I've fixed the configuration and I'm re-releasing pombase.org now. The annotations will be back soon.

iii) I thought we had more than 366 signal peptides?

Those are the ones I know of.

@ValWood
Copy link
Member Author

ValWood commented Feb 10, 2025

OK, I remember now we had a long discussion about the coverage being low

@kimrutherford
Copy link
Member

OK, I remember now we had a long discussion about the coverage being low

There's a bit of discussion here:

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants