CONCLUSIONS In our analysis we could predict a total of 15 selenoproteins, 5 cysteine homologues and 5 machinery proteins. A total of 5 proteins could not be predicted in the Pogona vitticeps genome. Also, 13 proteins showed a high homology with the reference genome but no methionine could be found. Of these 13 proteins, 8 where selenoproteins, 4 cysteine homologues and 1 was a machinery protein. We remark that some of these proteins are considered to be ancestral and conserved along the evolution and therefore we think that they should be present in the Pogona vitticeps genome. Only 1 protein did not have a hit in the Pogona vitticeps genome (Figure 5). Figure 6. Results of the selenoprotein analysis in the Pogona vitticeps genome. Green corresponds to the proteins “found” in the P. vitticeps genome. Grey corresponds to the proteins with the "methionine problem". Red corresponds to the “ not found” proteins. Black corresponds to the “no hit” in the P. vitticeps genome. During our analysis we have found some limitations.The main problem was that we could not found a methionine at the beginning of many proteins. Therefore we could not conclude if these proteins were properly translated and therefore were functional in Pogona vitticeps . In a high number of cases the Homo sapiens genome was used as a reference because it was better annotated although it was phylogenetically further. We also think that the Pogona vitticeps genome might not be perfectly annotated because of the problems occurred during the analysis. Nevertheless, after finishing this project and facing the different problems, we think that we have developed our critical thinking and organization skills. We also have learnt more about the selenoproteins and bioinformatics and our results could be helpful for the scientific community in the near future.