Ai Feedback
Exact(6)
The proportion of markers that generated amplicons within 10% of their expected sizes was 95.9% (190 out of 198).
Of the 3093 markers that generated RH vectors, 2621 were assigned to 43 linkage groups of 5 markers or more based on two-point analysis using CarthaGene [ 39].
Interestingly, the SSR markers that generated tens to thousands of in silico PCR products were mostly associated with the annotated TEs, especially the retrotransposons.
A total of 1354 markers that generated 1783 mapped loci onto the integrated linkage map showed significant similarity with F. vesca genome sequences placed onto the 7 chromosomes.
In particular, most (1602 of 1813; 88.4%) of the tested SSR markers that generated one in silico PCR product in the assembled genomic sequences of B. napus also amplified only a single clear fragment from the six representative B. napus cultivars/inbred lines.
More importantly, most (88.4%) of the tested SSR markers, that generated one in silico PCR product in the assembled genomic sequences of B. napus, also amplified a single clear fragment in the six representative B. napus cultivars/inbred lines (Supplementary Table S8).
Similar(54)
These results suggest that SSR markers that generate one in silico PCR product should be the putative single-locus markers and could be especially useful.
In addition, most (88.4%) of the tested SSR markers that generate one in silico PCR product were also confirmed by practical PCR analysis (Supplementary Table S8).
While generating the local interaction scenarios, the three markers that generate the interaction are restricted to the same chromosome and the maximum distance between these markers is restricted to 1, 4, 10, 20, 30, or 50 cM, depending on the local interaction scenario.
They also linked it to b-galactosidase, a commonly used enzymatic marker that generates an intense blue color when it metabolizes the sugar galactose.
Of the markers that were generated, those corresponding to previously published markers were excluded.
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