[Bioperl-l] fasta36 bug report

[Fields, Christopher J]

Depends on what you mean by ‘significant’; this is a question that probably belongs on a forum like Biostar or seqanswers.

The main thing is that the output is different enough that the latest releases will require additional work to get parsing working, but in the end may likely be more informative.  On the other hand if you have highly repetitive data then it could generate a lot of noise.  fasta35 may be completely sufficient depending what you are trying to do (which isn’t obvious here).

chris

On Aug 7, 2014, at 9:29 PM, Antony03 <antony.vincent.1 at ulaval.ca> wrote:

> Thank you for the answer. Do you if I can get more significant results with
> fasta35?
> 
> 
> 
> --
> View this message in context: http://bioperl.996286.n3.nabble.com/fasta36-bug-report-tp17620p17622.html
> Sent from the Bioperl-L mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> _______________________________________________
> Bioperl-l mailing list
> Bioperl-l at mailman.open-bio.org
> http://mailman.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/bioperl-l