Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(1)
Exact(1)
The transferability rates of mungbean primers were between 45.80% (V. subterranean) and 91.60% (V. angularis).
Similar(59)
Our results also confirmed this primer transferability among families with transferability rate of 71% (Table 9).
Twenty one EST-SSRs were polymorphic with average PIC value of 0.33 and transferability rate of 71%.
The average transferability rate of 101 SSR markers tested to section Arachis and six other sections was 81% and 59% respectively.
Therefore, the EST-SSRs developed from A. konjac and A. bulbifer could be successfully applied to other Amorphophallus species, with a transferability rate of 86.9%.
Similarly, Gimenes and colleagues [ 34] also observed a cross transferability rate of 60 to 100% to species belonging to different sections of Arachis using Arachis hypogaea microsatellites.
Transferability rate of mungbean genomic microsatellite markers to other Vigna species appeared to be more or less similar to previous studies.
The investigation showed that SNPs identified within the 'Golden Delicious' sequence had an average transferability rate of 40.9% to Malus cultivars, with the lowest TSNP to the cultivar 'Wagner' (25.7%) from those tested.
The cross-species transferability rate of the tested SSRs ranged from 76.1- 54.8% (Additional file 2), and most primer pairs produced polymorphic bands in the majority of tested Phalaenopsis species (Additional file 3).
The average transferability rate of 101 primer pairs (Ah SSRs and CS SSRs) tested was 81% to section Arachis, but ranged from 44% (Triseminatae) to 73% (Erectoides), to other six sections with an average of 59% (See Additional file 1).
The average transferability rate of all the primer pairs tested was higher to species of section Arachis presumably because species belonging to section Arachis are phylogenetically more closely related to each other and the source of most SSRs studied is section Arachis.
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