Categorizing BLAST results of putative or prospective proteins allows different libraries to be compared in terms of their expressional profile as a starting point for understanding high throughput data. The approach should be viewed cautiously as BLAST results may provide misleading data. Biochemical confirmation is still widely accepted as a necessary component of any study of a specific gene that is initially characterized by BLAST. Also, there are many different ways of categorizing genes. Three leading methods are (1) COG, (2) GO (Gene Ontogeny), and MiPS. The two former ones are used on this site, but there is no consensus that a specific approach is the best. Each is supported by significant research programs and provides different classifications that may prove advantageous under distinct conditions.
Below are summary charts of functional group differences for the obtained EST libraries obtained using the COG site for categorization of functional classes. These are preliminary classifications based on manual categorization.
Sperm Sua (top) versus Sperm Svn (below) |
|---|
  |
A complete listing of the Gene Ontology (GO) treatment of all contigs and singletons is available for the:
- Sua
- Svn
- combined page (taking twice as long to load)
Here are some further resources:
- Functional categories of ESTs: Graphical treatments: [COG version] [GO version] Text treatment: [Sua] [Svn] [combined page]
- Gene Expression: [In situ hybridization] [Real-time RT-PCR]
- Plumbago at the ACGT Genomics site: [Plumbago Home]
- BLASTs of ESTs: Detailed BLASTX search (this includes links to sequences and alignments) or an overview of the data [Svn data] [Sua data]
- Key word BLASTX search at the ACGT Genomics site: [Svn and Sua BLASTX results] | FTP: [Raw Sequence Data]
- Links to current GenBank entries: [Plumbago Sperm at NCBI]
- Online: PDF reprints of the Russell Lab
- My faculty web page and my curriculum vitae are also available online.
This file was last modified on Wednesday, 19-Nov-2003 18:19:03 CST