-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 186
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
Synteny Pattern #707
Comments
Seems complicated. Please also also send results with |
Thanks for your quick reply. This become more compliocated while runing in default programme A-B = 1:4 (instead of 1:3), A-C = 1:7 (instead of 1:6) and B-C = 4:6 (instead of 2:3). However, I have managed to generate microsynteny with i=3 and i=6 for B and C blocks reference with A. Thanks B-C_default.pdf |
Thanks. |
Yes. it is. Any suggestion from your end? Any parameter to play with? Thanks |
Can you double check Please note since |
From the results you send me:
My suggestions:
|
Thanks for your suggestion. I have re run the programme. The default results shows A:B = 1:4 (39,769 pair), A:C=1:7 (47,263 pair) and B:C = 4:6 (121,709 pairs), on the otherhand, the cs0.99 results showed A:B = 1:4 (20,213 pair), A:C=1:6 (19,697 pair) and B:C = 2:2 (32,289 pairs) A_B_default.pdf I do appreciate your help. Thanks |
The 1:4:6 pattern is very clear - which means A:B:C=2x:8x:12x. Also the 4x and 6x regions are equally distant to the diploid. This is because the pattern of 1:4 and 1:6 remains even when filtering down to reciprocal best (cscore=0.99). At least this part is clear. What's interesting is the pattern between B:C. You see B:C=4:6 in the default setting, which agrees with the paragraph above, that is fine. However, when filtering down to reciprocal best, some of the region pairs are closer among the 4x6 grid. This suggests that there are some shared sub-genomes in B and C. This becomes a more complicated research problem and goes beyond what I can help here. What I can suggest as next step is that you should calculate Ks for all gene pairs, plot the distributions of the Ks values. More importantly, with the Ks values you can repeat the dot plot again, with different colors of Ks, using the following command. python -m jcvi.graphics.dotplot B-C_default.ks This visualize the anchorfile in a dotplot. |
Hi there, This puts me in a challenging situation. The literature indicates that B is hexaploid (6x), and C is an allododecaploid (12x). C is the result of genome duplication of D (6x), which is a hybrid of B (6x) and E (6x). I know it sounds complicated. I’ve included a reference figure where C represents S. anglica (12x), B is S. alterniflora (6x), and A is the distantly related species O. thomaeum (2x). I'm struggling to piece together how to solve this.
I am wondering, if can I make a plot using quota commands. Would you please share your thoughts? Finally, I want to show a figure like this. I do appreciate your help. Thanks |
I do not see the color differences in the ks plot sent. It looks like we need to add the option to show the colormap.
I understand your situation. You can always screen with quota in all the comparisons:
However, this will leave some chromosomes in B unaccounted for. Try this command, and see for yourself. We can review the situation of A:B later when you have the Ks colors overlaid on the dotplot (above), but at this point it does look like 1:4, which brings B at 8x. You have the freedom to do what you want. My past experience is to do the right thing. Check genome sizes, or chromosome karyotype, flow cytometry. Sometimes past knowledge may not be accurate. |
Hi, [09/24/24 19:12:02] DEBUG Load file Quota on alignment stage not having any change. However quota on histogram stage showed the 1:3 pattern. Here is the images. A_B_quota1_3.pdf |
You are getting very deep use of the JCVI package ;-) so it can get frustrating for you to know how to use these functions.
|
Apology for delayed response. Here is the two figures: A-B.lifted.1x4.pdf I am wondering, some of the papers used only blocks having more than 5 genes. Do pattern can be modified by reducing the cds numbers and/or reducing the block numbers? Thanks |
Thank you. Would you please post a histogram of Ks? and set the appropriate |
Hi Tanghaibao,
Thanks for your reply. I got a recent paper, the karyotyping showing B is
allotetraploid which means our analysis was correct A:B:C (1:4:6). It
solves my current issues.
However, I can't explain the Ks distribution.
Again, according to the literature C is evolved derivatives of B shown
earlier figures. But the Ks distribution showing 2 recent WGD events
occurred in B, however, 1 recent and one anicient WGD occurred in C.
Therefore I can't explain how C becomes 12x coming from 8x and how the
duplication event occurred in B that are not present in C? Here I have
attched the histogram, Salt - means B and Sang- means C.
…On Sat, 5 Oct 2024, 7:24 pm Haibao Tang, ***@***.***> wrote:
@tamim07 <https://github.com/tamim07>
Thank you.
Would you please post a histogram of Ks? and set the appropriate --vmax
(for example --vmax=0.5) in the dotplot command so we can see the color
difference better? The default plot, as you sent, was ranged between 0 to
2, which can't distinguish old and new events very well.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#707 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABV3AIO6BNH4VUDUIZWI5CDZ2AVEDAVCNFSM6AAAAABOLPCKMGVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDGOJVGE2DCOBVGE>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
Hi, I am trying to identify the syntenic pattern. I have three genomes to compare one is diploid A (2x), B- hexaploid(6x) and C- allododecaploid (12x). The results I am getting A-B (1:4) instead of 1:3, A-C(1:6). and B-C (2:2) instead of 2:3 while giving the parameter --no_strip_names --cscore=.99. I have attached the the figures and here is my example commands:
python -m jcvi.compara.catalog ortholog A B --no_strip_names --cscore=.99
python -m jcvi.compara.synteny depth --histogram A.B.anchors
A-B.pdf
A-C.depth.pdf
A-C.pdf
B_C.depth.pdf
B_C.pdf
A-B.depth.pdf
Could you please help to get the right pattern? Thanks
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: