Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- blastocystis_orf160 [2025/11/10 15:14] – [Little to no expression of orf160 in regular and riboZeroPlus RNAseq data of ST7C] 134.190.191.148
+++ blastocystis_orf160 [2025/11/10 15:20] (current) – [Little to no expression of orf160 in regular and riboZeroPlus RNAseq data of ST7C] 134.190.191.148
@@ Line 429: / Line 429: @@
 What is striking is that the mitochondrial rRNA genes still had an enormous amount of coverage. Perhaps next time you want to sequence the mitochondrial transcriptome of some organism, also include probes targeting the mitochondrial rRNA genes!
-Another striking thing is that it seems that RNAseq coverage of mitochondrial ribosomal genes is much lower than that of the //nad// genes! Exceptions seem to be //rps12// and //rpl16//.
+Another striking thing is that it seems that **RNAseq coverage of mitochondrial ribosomal genes is much lower** than that of the //nad// genes! Exceptions seem to be //rps12// and //rpl16//.
+Zooming in to //orf160// / //rpl10//:
+{{:orf160_expression_screenshot.png|}}
+Unfortunately again it seems we are not seeing any significant evidence of expression of this gene. It may be that the throughput for this gene in particular was not high enough to detect any real expression, so we can't rule it out. Any reads that are overlapping with orf160 may be 3'UTR reads from the //nad7// gene upstream (here annotated as NdhH)
 ====== Ideas to explore ======