![]() |
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Trinity assembly and mapped reads is 0.2% | lufeng891109 | Bioinformatics | 4 | 05-25-2016 10:32 PM |
Trinity transcriptome assembly | upendra_35 | De novo discovery | 11 | 06-04-2015 10:34 AM |
Trinity Assembly | Bang_Didi | RNA Sequencing | 6 | 01-11-2015 08:45 PM |
De novo assembly using Trinity | ankitarathore | RNA Sequencing | 5 | 10-28-2014 09:03 AM |
Trinity Assembly error | yuanhuang | Bioinformatics | 7 | 04-24-2014 06:38 AM |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools |
![]() |
#1 |
Member
Location: Sweden Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 18
|
![]()
Hi folks,
I have new RNAseq data assembled with Trinity, and now I am trying to use qPCR for validation. I blasted a gene of interest from another species against the RNAseq data for primer design, but I have got something like this in return. comp82676_c0_seq1 comp82676_c0_seq2 comp82676_c0_seq3 comp82676_c0_seq4 comp82676_c0_seq5 All of them are best hits and have identical score and E value. They only have tiny gap differences when I aligned them. May you explain what are diffrences between them and which one I shall use for primer design? I want a primer to amplify both gene of interest and the closest hit from the new RNAseq data. Thank you very much for your time and help! |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
|
|