Tested (albeit, non-rigorously) BrowserUK's with a data file (very modestly varied from OP) eq:
>DL;H1_ENSP00000194530_chr2_202024 CCCC---GCCTTCTCGCTGCCCAGC--CCCGGGGA +GGGAGG* ">DL;H2_ENSP00000194530_chr2_202024 CCCC---GCCTTCTCGCTGCCCAGC--CCCGGGG +AGGGAGG*" line 2 >DL;H1_ENSP00000194530_chr2_202024 CCCC---GCCTTCDLTCGCTGCCCAGC--CCCGGG +GAGGGAGG* line3 >DL;H1_ENSP00000194530_chr2_202024 CCCC---GCCTTCTCGCTGCCCAGC--CCCGGGGA +GGGAGG line 4 >DL;H1_ENSP00000194530_chr2_202024 CCCC---GCCTTCTCGCTGCCCAGC--CCCGG*GG +AGGGAGG line 5
and output is:
>H1_ENSP00000194530_chr2_202024 CCCCGCCTTCTCGCTGCCCAGCCCCGGGGAGGGAGG ">H2_ENSP00000194530_chr2_202024 CCCCGCCTTCTCGCTGCCCAGCCCCGGGGAGGGAGG" + line 2 >H1_ENSP00000194530_chr2_202024 CCCCGCCTTCDLTCGCTGCCCAGCCCCGGGGAGGGAGG + line3 >H1_ENSP00000194530_chr2_202024 CCCCGCCTTCTCGCTGCCCAGCCCCGGGGAGGGAGG l +ine 4 >H1_ENSP00000194530_chr2_202024 CCCCGCCTTCTCGCTGCCCAGCCCCGGGGAGGGAGG l +ine 5
Nice, BrowserUK; ++
Update: Fixed the mis-attribution. Give BrowserUK another ++ and I'll do penance in the dungeon; the more so, since it was he who answered a brain_dead question about his code.
In reply to Re^2: Substitution on a sequence
by ww
in thread Substitution on a sequence
by uvnew
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |