Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(4)
Exact(3)
For the identification of a minimal coverage threshold, NCO GC frequencies were calculated at multiple minimal coverage values.
From a minimal coverage threshold of 10 onwards, the observed frequency of putative NCO GC does not majorly change.
To assess a minimal coverage threshold to identify putative NCO GCs for the DH lines, we used the same allele frequency cutoffs as for the analysis of the tetrad samples and calculated the conversion frequency for a series of minimal coverage thresholds.
Similar(56)
This was repeated at multiple minimal coverage thresholds.
We calculated the frequency of NCO GCs (defined as the ratio of converted markers divided by all markers) for a wide range of minimal coverage thresholds.
For all sets we observed that too low minimal coverage thresholds (for assigning either a NCO GC or no NCO GC) led to increased putative NCO GC frequencies.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.01426.008 10.7554/eLiFigure2 figureigure 2—figure supplement 3. NCO GC frequency per marker per meiosis measured in the five deeply sequenced tetrads, using a range of minimal coverage thresholds and three different marker sets.
All fragments were of similar size as the fragments shown in B and C, corroborating the slightly longer than expected length for the product by primers 1 and 2. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.01426.011 10.7554/eLiFigure2 figureigure 2—figure supplement 6. NCO GC frequency per marker per meiosis measured in 10 recombinant DH lines at increasing minimal coverage thresholds.
Calculating the probability of NCO GCs per marker at a series of minimum coverage thresholds revealed that beyond a minimal coverage of 10, the frequency of NCO GC remained stable.
We required the minimal length coverage threshold to be 0.7, which means that the minimum alignment length should cover at least 70% of full length of the shortest member in a group of sequences.
To calculate this minimal read coverage threshold, we applied the method described in [ 28].
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