Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(1)
Exact(1)
Comparing performance between the five different marker types – single SNP, 4gamete, HapBlock, SlideWin3, TreeScan edges – was done on the basis of power at empirical FDR of 0.10 and 0.20.
Similar(59)
Of all the genetic marker types available, single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are the most abundant, and thus offer the greatest level of genetic resolution.
The F2_O, G2M, and G2F maps included different marker types: AFLP, single sequence repeat (SSR), expressed sequence tag (EST), and SNPs from different arrays (Chancerel et al. 2011, 2013), whereas the F2_N map contained only SNPs from the 9k SNP-array (Plomion et al. 2015).
We investigated the effects of the number of genetic markers; marker type (microsatellite, single nucleotide polymorphism SNP, or both); minor allele frequency; typing error; mating system; and the number of overlapping generations under different demographic conditions.
In addition, we developed two sets of genetic markers of popular types, single copy nuclear genes and nuclear microsatellites (EST-SSR).
Marker: marker type 1.f.
Three new marker types, InDel (insertion-deletion) and SNP (single nucleotide polymorphism) developed from gene information, and REMAP (retrotransposon-microsatellite amplified polymorphism), were used to increase map density.
The most abundant marker type is the single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP).
Other marker types including amplified fragment length polymorphisms (AFLP) and single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) have been added to online versions of the maps [ 4].
Among the many types of DNA markers, simple sequence repeats (SSRs) and single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are the preferred marker types for many genetic applications.
DNA markers have recently become a powerful tool to measure individual genome-wide homozygosity and two different marker types can be used, each with its strengths and weaknesses - short tandem repeats (STR) and single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP).
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com