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

Why the FeGenie installed by conda and the FeGenie installed manually work very differently? #31

Open
xdli009 opened this issue Oct 19, 2021 · 8 comments

Comments

@xdli009
Copy link

xdli009 commented Oct 19, 2021

Hi,

Thanks for the tool. Since I found that the annotations obtained from FeGenie installed by conda were few. I test the FeGenie installed by conda and the FeGenie installed manually. The results of these two approaches are very different. Why?

Thank you!

@Arkadiy-Garber
Copy link
Owner

Hi, thanks for your interest in FeGenie! Sorry that you are having issues. When you installed FeGenie manually, do you mean that you followed this installation protocol: https://github.com/Arkadiy-Garber/FeGenie#installation-if-you-dont-have-conda?

Any chance you can share the output files from the two runs?

Thanks,
Arkadiy

@xdli009 xdli009 closed this as completed Oct 20, 2021
@xdli009 xdli009 reopened this Oct 20, 2021
@xdli009
Copy link
Author

xdli009 commented Oct 20, 2021

Yes,FeGenie manually mean installation-if-you-don't-have-conda.

I ran the test data(Rhodopseudomonas_palustris_TIE-1.txt-proteins.faa) and the results were also different.

Command:
FeGenie.py -bin_dir ./ -bin_ext faa -out fegenie_out_conda --orfs -t 36

Results:
result.tar.gz

@ChaoLab
Copy link

ChaoLab commented Oct 23, 2021

Hi Arkadiy, I have a similar problem that conda-installed FeGeine seems to report fewer results.

I have run a custom hmmsearch by using HMMs for iron reduction. I used these HMMs for iron reduction (github.com/Arkadiy-Garber/FeGenie/tree/master/iron/iron_reduction). The bitscore cutoff is from this file (github.com/Arkadiy-Garber/FeGenie/blob/master/iron/HMM-bitcutoffs.txt). I thought the result should be the same with using FeGenie. I used FeGeine to run "S011_maxbin2_scaf2bin.001", and compared the result with my previous result (which shows 2 hits of DmkB and 1 hit of Ndh2). But, FeGeine reports no hits at all.

But when I open the HMM result (DmkB.hmm.tblout and Ndh2.hmm.tblout for S011_maxbin2_scaf2bin.001; please see the attachments 1 and 2), it reports the same results as I was doing the custom hmmsearch. Those resulted bitscores are all higher than their suggested cutoff (for DmkB, 110.4 and 78.5 both > 25; for Ndh2, 148.6 > 40). So I re-checked the FeGenie v1.0 installed folders to find the bitscore cutoff values that the software used (under my account, they are in "/home/zhichao/miniconda3/envs/fegenie/share/fegenie-1.0/hmms/iron/HMM-bitcutoffs.txt"). While, the cutoff values are the same.

Now, I am confused on what cutoff values and/or other criteria conda-installed FeGeine really uses?

Best!
Chao

Attachments:

  1. S011_maxbin2_scaf2bin.001_DmkB.hmm.tblout.txt
  2. S011_maxbin2_scaf2bin.001_Ndh2.hmm.tblout.txt
  3. fegenie_out_for_S011_maxbin2_scaf2bin.001.zip

@xdli009
Copy link
Author

xdli009 commented Oct 31, 2021

@Arkadiy-Garber

Hi Arkadiy, what are the reasons of the above problems? Which way should I install the software?

Thanks!

@Arkadiy-Garber
Copy link
Owner

Hi,

Apologies for the delay in getting this issue resolved. I believe the discrepancy is caused by the fact that the FeGenie package that is available via conda is an outdated version. So the results from the manual install should be used. For what it's worth, I just tagged a new FeGenie version release, so the conda recipe for FeGenie should be updated with the latest updates and bug fixes within a few days. Please use the manual install if you want to go with the results you already have. Otherwise, please wait a few days and try again with a conda install.

Let me know if you have any questions about this, continue to see differences in the results, or run into any other issues. Again, apologies for this confusion, and for the delay in getting this issue resolved.

Thanks,
Arkadiy

@xdli009
Copy link
Author

xdli009 commented Nov 12, 2021

@Arkadiy-Garber

Hi Arkadiy, I have the same problem as Chao. @ChaoLab

When I open the HMM result from FeGenie, I find that "MtoA.hmm.tblout" reports some hits. But "FeGenie-geneSummary.csv" reports no hits about MtoA. I am confused on what cutoff values and/or other criteria manual-installed FeGeine really uses?

Thanks!

@Arkadiy-Garber
Copy link
Owner

Hi,

Apologies for the confusion about this. The reason why you see some hits reported in the tblout from hmmsearch, but not in the main summary output, is because in addition to the bit score cutoffs for each individual HMM, FeGenie uses a gene cluster/operon detecting algorithm to filter out potential false positive hits. For example, in the case of MtoA, there may be some protein sequences that surpass the bit score threshold set in FeGenie (and these hits would be reported in "MtoA.hmm.tblout". However, in order to be reported as potential iron oxidation/reduction, this gene would need to be found encoded next to a porin like MtrB. If that is not present, then it is likely that the protein identified by the MtoA HMM is not really involved in iron reduction or oxidation. Does this make sense?

You have the option of setting the following flag in the FeGenie command: --all_results. If you do that, FeGenie will generate a summary file that features all HMM matches, regardless of operon or gene neighborhood structure.

Hope that helps to relieve some of the confusion. Let me know if there are additional questions or issues.

Thanks,
Arkadiy

@xdli009
Copy link
Author

xdli009 commented Nov 13, 2021

Thank you very much for your reply!

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

3 participants