Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(60)
For each species, the probability of identity of genotypes was calculated to distinguish between clones and identical genotypes by chance using GIMLET.
The overall probability of identity (PID) of unrelated multilocus genotypes was assessed according to Paetkau et al. (1995), as implemented in the IDENTITY program (Wagner and Sefc 1999).
All loci were highly polymorphic with an average probability of identity of 0.18 (TB) and 0.13 (STB), heterozygosity of 0.65 (TB) and 0.68 (STB), and polymorphism information content (PIC) of 0.62 (TB) and 0.69 (STB).
Reducing the number of people who can access the network also reduces the probability of identity theft.
For individual loci, the probability of identity ranged from 0.41 (for Rtyp4) to 0.0041 (for Rtyp6), and the combined probability of identity for the eight loci was 7.64×10−9.
To estimate the power of the markers, we calculated the total probability of identity' (PID) for each locus and for all loci combined in GENALEX [17].
To account for this probability of identity in state, the probability was subtracted from the lower limit of CI of the selfing rate (see below).
When calculating the probability of identity by descent for two alleles chosen from the same subpopulation [25], the rate of emigration is irrelevant.
We have shown that the 8 microsatellite loci described here can accurately be used for genetic tagging of whale sharks with a probability of identity of 7.64×10−9.
Along with this, we calculated the probability of identity (PI), or probability that two unrelated host individuals would (by chance alone) have the same multilocus Symbiodinium genotype, for both the M. faveolata and M. annularis datasets in GenAlEx v6.2 [43].
The program CERVUS 3.03 was used to calculate the probability of identity, the likelihood that each whale shark carries a unique pattern of genetic markers across the loci described here.
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