Sentence examples for mutation rate estimates from inspiring English sources

This is the first analysis of mutational processes and mutation rate estimates in the nuclear genome of P. pacificus because previous knowledge is based solely on the mitochondrial genome (Molnar et al. 2011).

We used mutation rate estimates for specific mutational events to judge relative probabilities of different scenarios.

Thus 'hidden' mutational bands in extra-pair offspring will cause a bias in mutation rate estimates, and, therefore, they have to be excluded.

This discrepancy might be explained by the fact that a large share of STR variation derived within a haplogroup is being effectively removed by genetic drift, rendering mutation rate estimates based on evolutionary considerations 3 or more times lower than those based on pedigree studies [15].

In contrast we used a unique prior for the microsatellite mutation rate estimates as 6.9×10−4 as recommended by Zhivotovsky and co-workers [24] [26], see also [27] [31], that, as reported above, placed the haplogroups TMRCA values in pre-Neolithic times.

Mutation rate estimates for these lineages are therefore only approximate.

However, there is an increasing discrepancy between the overall mutation rate estimated from likelihood analysis and that from the classical estimator when the rate is significantly higher than 1%.

The average mutation rate estimated over 7680 gametes was in the range reported within fish (3.9 × 10− 4) and did not compromise parentage analysis.

To determine the sensitivity of inferred population dynamics to mutation rate, two additional BSPs were constructed using the 25th and 75th percentile of the highest posterior density (HPD) interval corresponding to the mean mutation rate estimate.

We assume here that synonymous mutation are neutral and that the synonymous divergence gives an estimate of the mutation rate; although, there is a discrepancy between mutation rate estimated from pedigrees and the level of synonymous divergence, this is probably a consequence of the methods used to infer the pedigree mutation rate [17].

That would have given a mutation rate estimate of 16/2362.5 = 0.006772, or a reduction in mutation rate estimate by 35%.