Difference between revisions of "Talk:Canavan Task 2 - Sequence alignments"

From Bioinformatikpedia
(Review)
Line 6: Line 6:
 
* Some figures are not referenced properly in the text, tables are not referenced or mentioned at all
 
* Some figures are not referenced properly in the text, tables are not referenced or mentioned at all
 
* Your cutoff for the blast searches seems very low, and I think you didn't increase the number of results like andrea wrote. My guess is that you consequently can not really compare the number of hits.
 
* Your cutoff for the blast searches seems very low, and I think you didn't increase the number of results like andrea wrote. My guess is that you consequently can not really compare the number of hits.
  +
** Agreed, this might also solve you problem of no pdb structures -jonas
 
* You could have tried to use the whole big database for PSI-Blast and PDB for HHBlits to make the results more comparable.
 
* You could have tried to use the whole big database for PSI-Blast and PDB for HHBlits to make the results more comparable.
 
*You could elaborate a little bit more, e.g. on the MSA's.
 
*You could elaborate a little bit more, e.g. on the MSA's.

Revision as of 08:55, 8 May 2012

  • Your PSI-Blast search seems to have hit the reporting limits. Please increase the cutoffs, so you can really compare the results. andrea 10:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Review

  • Some figures are not referenced properly in the text, tables are not referenced or mentioned at all
  • Your cutoff for the blast searches seems very low, and I think you didn't increase the number of results like andrea wrote. My guess is that you consequently can not really compare the number of hits.
    • Agreed, this might also solve you problem of no pdb structures -jonas
  • You could have tried to use the whole big database for PSI-Blast and PDB for HHBlits to make the results more comparable.
  • You could elaborate a little bit more, e.g. on the MSA's.
  • I like your figures, very nice, just get rid of the ??.
  • Making the link to 3D structure is very interesting but I would have enjoyed reading more about it :)


I did not have the time to really rethink your approach in detail, but you worked nicely and especially very efficiently. Best, Alice