Sentence examples for marker density compared from inspiring English sources

Using each bin as a marker, a genetic linkage map based on recombination frequency was constructed, which was 1,625.5 cM in length, approximately 1.0 cM per bin, corresponding to 230 kb (Table S2), representing a great increase in marker density compared to 8.7 cM between adjacent markers in the RFLP/SSR map [16] and 2.4 cM/bin in the SFP map [9].

Because of reports of schizophrenia susceptibility genes within the 22q11 region, this locus has obtained a high marker density compared to the 22q13 region [ 24].

The two genetic maps have very high marker density compared with other reported genetic maps in filamentous fungi (Foulongne-Oriol 2012).

Owing to this careful error checking, the current map shows an increase in the total marker density compared with the previous maps developed by using SSR and DArT markers.

Tracing large IBD-blocks within a known pedigree does not require dense markers, which makes IBD-GS less sensitive to marker density, compared to the more widely used IBS-GS.

Figure 1 clearly shows marginal differences between GWpEBV and GWEBV for the two marker densities, since the lines overlap, and that the accuracy is more stable over generations using a high marker density compared to a low marker density.

These relatively low marker densities, compared to sequenced genomes, limit the mapping resolution of BSA.

The NM linkage group 7 had the largest marker interval, lowest marker density and, compared with the CM334 chromosome 7, had the smallest fraction of unigene markers per gene (Kim et al. 2014).

Immunofluorescence analysis with antibody targeting endothelial cell marker CD31 revealed that tumor sections in CD146EC-KO mice displayed decreased vascular density compared with those in WT mice (Fig. 4A).

Some fluctuations in the marker distribution were observed, especially in the COX1 locus, which presented a lower density compared to the rest of the genome.

Although our map is of comparable length, it represents a dramatic increase in marker number (+559% compared with that of Gross et al. 2008; +320% compared with that of O'Quin et al. 2013) and marker density (+473% compared with that of Gross et al. 2008; +279% compared with that of O'Quin et al. 2013) relative to previously published linkage maps for this system.