Marker-free transformation is less genotype dependent and less prone to vector backbone integration as compared to marker-assisted transformation.
In terms of vector backbone integration, marker-free transformation apparently produces a lower percentage (24%) of vector backbone integrations compared to marker-assisted transformation 40-500%).
This Table illustrates well the relevance of external transcript levels as compared to markers.
Compared to markers based on size discrimination or hybridization, SNPs directly interrogate sequence variation and can reduce genotyping errors [ 12].
Because the recombination rates between these more distant markers and the QTL are higher, they will loose their predictive value more quickly compared to markers near the QTL.
These physically linked markers should be more reliable predictors compared to markers that are in LD but may not be physically linked.
The Puget × 90 2079 RIL population was genotyped using additional SSR, RAPD, SCAR and known-function gene markers from [ 49, 53, 69, 78- 80] compared to markers reported in [ 31].
CIN is commonly assessed by LOH analyses of microsatellite markers, and markers in the 18q region appear to be generally more sensitive, compared to markers in other chromosomal regions such as 1p, 2p, 3p, 5q, 8p and 17p [ 2- 5].
In the LowLD_NoSel scenario (the one with the lowest level of LD), the distribution of allele frequencies was bell-shaped, with a much higher frequency of markers with intermediate allele frequencies compared to markers with extreme allele frequencies.
When compared to markers of myofibroblasts, there was no overlap between the expression of the CK19 YFP reporter and immune-fluorescence for alpha smooth muscle actin, FSP1, or desmin [ 18].
