Sentence examples for mapping efficiency was from inspiring English sources

For the differentiating data, the unique mapping efficiency was improved by 10.59% (p-value = 0, variance ≈ 10−8).

GSNAP mapped more A2 reads than Bowtie, and a substantial increase of mapping efficiency was observed with SNP-tolerant mapping enabled.

We observed that low mapping efficiency was strongly associated with limiting sample material (less than 10 bacteria per sample – Figure  4B).

Overall, the mapping efficiency was very high with ~98% of all simulated reads from both populations being mapped to the correct gene in the reference sequence (Table  4).

In terms of relative amount of mapped reads, some cultivars show a very low performance, e.g. for the Kozma cultivar mapping efficiency was about 77 %.

To understand what the best possible bisulfite mapping efficiency was, a simulation was performed where simulated bisulfite reads were sampled from the mouse reference genome at random and read sequencing error was introduced.

Such improvement in mapping efficiency is related to sequence entropy.

Our mapping efficiency is comparable to other ChIP-Seq experiments [ 31, 32].

Our overall mapping efficiency is similar to comparable studies, which report 23.7% mean gross mapping efficiency and 42.7% mean net mapping efficiency (Meyer et al. 2011).

The unique mapping efficiency is consistently lower when mismatches are in the first 25 bases, and it is worsened with increased mismatch count.

The achieved mapping efficiency is actually higher than in a comparable study of a non-model organism, which used an analogous approach for differential expression analysis (41% efficiency) [ 52].