Question: IGV or IGB
1
gravatar for akivab2
19 months ago by
akivab2100
European Union
akivab2100 wrote:

Hi,

In the past I used to work with IGB, mainly for DNA-seq. I started working in a new lab, and the genome browser they have been using is IGV. Much of the data viewed in the lab is of RNA-seq and ATAC-seq.

I was wondering if there is any preference to IGV or IGB? I found IGB to be easier to use and visually nicer, so I rather continue using it, unless of course there is some advantage to IGV.

Thanks, Akiva

P.S. i read somewhere that IGV is better for NGS data, is this true? and why?

igv rna-seq igb ngs genome browser • 1.2k views
ADD COMMENTlink modified 29 days ago by xunshengbu0 • written 19 months ago by akivab2100

I am sure you will find people who strongly feel about one or the other but I don't think there is a clear winner. IGV is probably better funded, promoted and thus used than IGB but that is a non-technical distinction.

It finally is personal preference.

ADD REPLYlink modified 19 months ago • written 19 months ago by genomax87k

Both projects are currently funded and actively developed.

ADD REPLYlink written 17 months ago by Nowlan Freese850
0
gravatar for xunshengbu
29 days ago by
xunshengbu0
United States
xunshengbu0 wrote:

I used IGV a lot and recently checked up IGB. Both have basic gene features and sequence visualization. IGV offers a lot of visualization features on variations (VCFs), which I haven't see much on IGB (doesn't mean it's not there). IGB does have on-the-fly plugins, allows you to compare known SNPs in 23andMe, or blast gene of interest to NCBI NR database, and InterProScan on annotation (haven't tried yet).

ADD COMMENTlink written 29 days ago by xunshengbu0
Please log in to add an answer.

Help
Access

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.
Powered by Biostar version 2.3.0
Traffic: 1373 users visited in the last hour