Sentence examples for between these two maps from inspiring English sources
There was a poor match between these two maps collected three days apart (c.f. Fig. 10B and 10C).
Interestingly, less Klp3A was pulled down in the presence of PPI (Fig. 5B), suggesting that the interaction between these two MAPs could require dephosphorylation.
Although there are some variances between these two maps (e.g., compare the mediodorsal regions of the middle and right panels of Fig. 5C), we were able to determine the borders that match well for both sets of samples by averaging the data.
Figure 6(c) shows the spatial correlation between these two maps.
Apart from this, the similarity concerning conserved synteny between these two maps is very high.
The syntenic relationship between these two maps was highly collinear, except for a few small parts of the genomes.
There are differences between the relative impacts of these two maps, where some locations that have relatively little "missing" water supply may have higher CWD; thus, some locations with full reservoirs may have higher irrigation demands or forest die-off.
The same markers between the LG of these three maps are connected with black lines.
However, the positions and orders of the markers in these regions became consistent between the two Maps when the mHemi-SNPs and Pseudo-simple SNPs in these regions were removed (with the 11 unauthentic DH lines retained; Figure 5 and Additional file 7: Figure S4).
Three markers, i.e., 1_0308 (LG1_10591059 (LG2) and 1_1298 (LG6) show slight change in orders between the two maps; however, since these markers are randomly distributed, such changes maybe due to the presence of additional flanking SSR loci or different mapping LOD threshold used.
A number of markers mapping to P1 cultivated at 114.4−131.6 cM map to P8 wild at 0−12.1 cM in the FA population, however, several of these makers lack collinearity between the two maps indicating the association with P1 may be due to pseudolinkage between P1 wild and P8 wild markers.
