Difference between revisions of "Talk:Fabry:Sequence-based mutation analysis"
From Bioinformatikpedia
Rackersederj (talk | contribs) |
Staniewski (talk | contribs) (→Praise) |
||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
* Nice tables |
* Nice tables |
||
* Nice visualizations of the mutated residues. Is this pymol? |
* Nice visualizations of the mutated residues. Is this pymol? |
||
+ | : I don't think so. They were generated by [http://www.cmbi.ru.nl/hope/home HOPE]. |
||
* Plenty of physicochemical properties. |
* Plenty of physicochemical properties. |
||
Revision as of 21:01, 18 June 2012
Praise
- Nice tables
- Nice visualizations of the mutated residues. Is this pymol?
- I don't think so. They were generated by HOPE.
- Plenty of physicochemical properties.
Criticism
- Does the secondary structure prediction refer to the sequence before or after the mutation?
--> Since we used the files from Task 3 (see Journal), it is from the native structure
- What are your reasons for taking into account the substitution score of PAM1 and PAM250? Is the evolutionary distance not too short and too far, respectively?
--> We were said to do that
- I think the substitution scores of the three matrices are not directly comparable. PAM1 should have lower scores than PAM250 relative to the maximum score.
--> We díd compare them relatively not the absolute values
- What do the entries in the PSSM table mean? It is obviously not the substitution score. In case of P40S: is P(P|40) = 0.81 or P(S|40) = 0.81?
- You classify the features either as disease causing or not disease causing. But what if a feature is in between?
--> There are more severe forms of the disease and less severe forms, but either you are ill or not... What else is there in between?
- You are weighting each feature equally. For instance PAM1, PAM25, and BLOSUM62 are treated equally. The three secondary structure prediction are of course not independent.
--> but sometimes different. A weighting function would have actually been a good idea, but since we are not done yet, it would have made no sense to develop one.