A very comprehensive answer . Thanks for taking time to make the interpretations. I agree to your analogy and did have a feeling that it has not been used for gene/transcript annotation. Although I am not an expert in protein annotation so wanted to get insights from experts.
Thanks everyone for the insightful interpretations and answers.
• 0 views
•
link
written
by
ivivek_ngs
Take a look at this UniProt blast search and the second hit. There are some other larger protein hits. The protein link you posted is likely a fragment, correct?
A tblastn search at NCBI results in a single hit to a non-coding RNA (once you filter the results for human).
Interesting... I see the source of the Uniprot entry seems to be automated translation of the cDNA you linked from this 1993 pub (see figure 1). Paper suggests chain encoded by "HK102", a vK1 chain gene (as it was named in 1993?). There are many high-homology hits to this cDNA sequence in the NCBI EST database. No high-homology full length hits to the cDNA in refseq human, but some to other organisms, all of which are other immunoglobulin chains. I'm no immunologist but this sequence contains variable regions (CDRs) so I guess using homology to map to a well-annotated gene entry may be challenging.
I suspect it is a variation on P0DOX7
Yes, hypothetically it can be a suspected variation of P0DOX7 but cannot be assertive at this point. Not much evidence at transcriptional level though. Thanks again.
Yes, I agree to your interpretations. Thanks for spending time to provide such useful information.
Yes, it is a fragment. Interesting find that it is mostly non-coding hit. I reckon this does not qualify for me farther since my protein component association needs to be with a protein coding gene.