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

cicar.ICC4958.gnm2.ann1.LCVX.gene_models_main.gff3.gz has 153 genes w/o Note and 13,429 w/o GO terms #186

Open
sammyjava opened this issue Nov 29, 2023 · 2 comments
Assignees

Comments

@sammyjava
Copy link
Contributor

sammyjava commented Nov 29, 2023

Right now I'm limiting the number of allowable no-Note genes to 100. Maybe 153 is fine, but there are also a lot of GO terms missing in this GFF (16,993 gene records DO have GO terms, though).

[convertFile] ## Validating cicar collection ICC4958.gnm2.ann1.LCVX
[convertFile] - cicar.ICC4958.gnm2.ann1.LCVX.gene_models_main.gff3.gz
[convertFile] ## INVALID: cicar.ICC4958.gnm2.ann1.LCVX.gene_models_main.gff3.gz 153 gene records are missing the Note attribute.
[convertFile] x cicar.ICC4958.gnm2.ann1.LCVX.gene_models_main.gff3.gz 13428 gene record Note attributes are missing GO terms.

@sammyjava sammyjava changed the title cicar.ICC4958.gnm2.ann1.LCVX.gene_models_main.gff3.gz has 153 genes w/o Note and no GO terms cicar.ICC4958.gnm2.ann1.LCVX.gene_models_main.gff3.gz has 153 genes w/o Note and 13.429 w/o GO terms Nov 29, 2023
@sammyjava sammyjava changed the title cicar.ICC4958.gnm2.ann1.LCVX.gene_models_main.gff3.gz has 153 genes w/o Note and 13.429 w/o GO terms cicar.ICC4958.gnm2.ann1.LCVX.gene_models_main.gff3.gz has 153 genes w/o Note and 13,429 w/o GO terms Nov 29, 2023
@sammyjava
Copy link
Contributor Author

(I'll increase the no-Note limit to 250 for now so I can get MiniMine 5.1.0.4 loaded.)

@adf-ncgr
Copy link
Contributor

adf-ncgr commented Dec 4, 2023

OK, I just took a somewhat closer look at this; my impression is that we may have not actually run the full AHRD protocol on this one, which probably explains why it is a little peculiar. Looks like we had to do a fair amount of wrangling back in the day to get it to behave at the then-current set of standards. Not sure it is worth revisiting, but I'll keep it on my todo list for the time being.

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