-
**Are you using the latest release?**
I am running FunAnnotate in Conda and have updated to 1.8.0 but I see that 1.8.3 is the most recent version. If there is a way to force the update to 1.8.3, plea…
-
Dear Jon,
Thank for the latest release of **funannotate**. I tried it on _Linum usitatissimum_ genome and almost everything went fine. However, InterProScan search is still running for 10+ days and…
-
Hi,
I updated to v. 1.8.1, but I had the problem also in 1.7.4.
I run antismash v5.0 (I edit, antiSMASH 5.1.2) locally and I think the output is somehow not correctly parsed.
It consistently …
-
Peter mentioned that he wanted us to do enrichment tests on the FDR significant genes for each subregion and for both. He also mentioned that Leo has code that I could adapt to this end. I'm opening t…
-
I am trying to assemble metagenome while also running biosyntheticSPAdes.
I am dividing the workload between 2 clusters. I already obtained good results but for some samples in one of the clusters I …
drelo updated
3 years ago
-
Hello,
I got an error while running 'funannotate annotate'. Since 'fun annotate remote' did not produce any result, I ran antiSMASH on their web server. When I tried to feed the resulting gbk file …
-
I am currently using the latest version which I pulled off of github today (v1.5.3-21ad095).
I am also using the newest version of antiSMASH v5, however, I noticed that the qualifiers in the .gbk o…
-
Hi John,
In v1.3.0 I'm having an issue with `funnanotate annotate --antismash` to incorporate results from `funannotate remote`. It appears that results from antiSMASH are not properly parsed or a …
-
Hi,
Following the new updated simpleSingleCell workflow , I use makeTechTrend() to fit mean-variance trend for my 10X data. However, after decomposeVar() from the new fit, many housekeeping genes, w…
-
Dear Jon,
I have launched funannotate predict with the following parameters, and it has failed:
```
funannotate predict -i 901.masurca.scf.fasta -o 901.fun_out --species "Linum usitatissimum" -…