As will be clear from the question and various replies, there are several different repositories for data emerging from the various nucleic acid sequencing projects. The two main gene oriented ones — NCBI and ENSEMBL — are funded by the US government and European goverments, respectively, and share primary sequence data. However they differ in their interpretative focus and the secondary data (often from elsewhere) that they present in combination with the nucleic acid sequences. There are other valuable webs services that are more limited in scope — the UCSC browser (mentioned by Maximillian Press) providing graphical views of several reference genomes. The main protein-oriented repository is UniProt, as @Michael_A mentioned.
The poster is interested in the transcripts for a particular gene (Transmembrane protease serine 3), and the NCBI and ENSEMBL facilities he consulted were, in my opinion, the most appropriate. As he found different transcripts presented by the two facilities, he might follow the suggestion of consulting UniProt, but it transpires that the set of isoforms it presents differ again. (The UCSC browser displays the ENSEMBL set which originate from the GENCODE project.) This is summarized in the table below — three common isoforms, but ones absent from other data repositories.
NCBI |
ENSEMBL |
UniProt |
Size (aa) |
NM_024022.4, NP_076927.1 (iso 1) |
TMPRSS3-203 |
P57727 (-1) |
454 aa |
NM_032404.3, NP_115780.1 (iso 2) |
— |
P57727-2 |
327 aa |
NM_032405.2, NP_115781.1 (iso 3) |
TMPRSS3-201 |
P57727-3 |
344 aa |
NM_001256317.3, NP_001243246 (iso 4) |
TMPRSS3-208 |
P57727-5 |
453 aa |
— |
TMPRSS3-202 |
— |
451 aa |
— |
— |
P57727-4 |
293 aa |
AAT66641.1 (iso 5) |
— |
P57727-6 |
538 aa |
|
|
|
|
[NM_024022.3 (= NM_024022.4)] |
[TMPRSS3-209 (= 208)] |
— |
[duplicate] |
Why could cause this conflict, and what can one do to resolve it? Transcript data may be obtained for individual genes in specific studies, or in large projects like ENCODE. Whereas I imagine the commonalities probably arise from the larger projects, it seems likely that the smaller ones are represented in the individual unique cases. The reason that this might be so is that the pattern of differential splicing often differs between tissues and at different developmental stages, so that such transcripts might be missed in whole body studies or in studies in which a tissue was not included. In this case uneven coverage of tissues involved in hearing could possibly be the problem. Mistakes can also arise: this is presumably the reason for the two identical transcripts being listed. And it is difficult for NCBI to co-ordinate different submissions — hence the strange situation of the missing transcript map for ‘isoform 5’.
So there can be no general answer as to which data repository is the “best” or the one to “believe”. One has to find where the evidence is for a particular transcript, i.e. identify the original papers, read them, and make one’s own decisions as a scientist.