Difference between KEGG BlastKOALA and Annotate Sequence
Dear community,
I'm trying to annotate a few new proteomes with putative functions. I tried KEGG. There are "BlastKOALA" and "Annotate Sequence" both listed in their portal, and the two tools produce results in the same format. I noticed that the first-glance differences are that 1) BlastKOALA is much slower, and requires Email verification, 2) BlastKOALA lets you define an NCBI Taxonomy ID, and designate a database, while Annotate Sequence only lets you type genus name.
Given that, I am curious what are their actual differences, and which one should I use, or are there any other recommended options?
Thanks and have a great new week.
Best,
0 answers
No answers yet.
Log in to answer this question.
More posts like this
-
Pathway annotation using KEGG
written by sharmatina189059 •
-
How to check for the completeness of a pathway module in KEGG given a genbank file
written by cleb
-
Can someone give insight into the difference between current gene-function databases?
written by VermillionAzure •
-
Machine Learning on noisy genome data. Scikit-learn python
written by QVINTVS_FABIVS_MAXIMVS
-
Tool: SubDBer: Flexible taxonomy-based subsampling of sequence databases
written by qiyunzhu
-
Gene official symbols and uncharacterised genes in the Salmonella annotations
written by robjohn7000
-
what are short reads in Chip Seq and how come there are so many?
written by Affan
-
How To Add An Attribute To A Sequence Header (Of Fasta) Based On A Match Off Another Fasta?
written by microbeatic
-
Extract Human Gene Sequences Based On Kegg Gene Name
written by Dejian
-
Is There Any Way To Retrieve Genes' Sequences In Fasta Format Using The Kegg Orthology Code?
written by Luke
I would guess that "Annotate sequence" option uses a smaller search space therefore is faster. They say it is an interface into BlastKOALA, thus, there should be no difference in the results for the same query/reference.
Thanks! That makes sense.