1990
DOI: 10.1007/bf02704712
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

5-Methylcytosine content and methylation status in six millet DNAs

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

1994
1994
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Interpretation of the condition IV (absence from both MseI-HpaII and MseI-MspI products) as informative, missing or null data modified the relationship between HPLC estimates and the quantitative interpretations of MSAP results. Kumar et al (1990) Estimates obtained by chromatographic quantification (HPLC) of individual nucleosides are typically expressed as percentage of global cytosines that are methylated [%mC = 100 * mC/(C + mC)]. Analyses of fragment size polymorphisms obtained by endonucleases differing in mC sensitivity (MSAP) were more variable in their way of reporting results.…”
Section: Helleborus Foetidus: Msap Analyses and Comparisons With Hplcmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Interpretation of the condition IV (absence from both MseI-HpaII and MseI-MspI products) as informative, missing or null data modified the relationship between HPLC estimates and the quantitative interpretations of MSAP results. Kumar et al (1990) Estimates obtained by chromatographic quantification (HPLC) of individual nucleosides are typically expressed as percentage of global cytosines that are methylated [%mC = 100 * mC/(C + mC)]. Analyses of fragment size polymorphisms obtained by endonucleases differing in mC sensitivity (MSAP) were more variable in their way of reporting results.…”
Section: Helleborus Foetidus: Msap Analyses and Comparisons With Hplcmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Regarding the adequacy of combining condition II and III markers, it is important to emphasize that the relative contribution of CG, CHG and CHH contexts to global cytosine content estimates varies across plant species (Gruenbaum et al 1981;Belanger & Hepburn 1990;Kumar et al 1990;Kova r ık et al 1997). In addition, we found that percentages of methylation at CG and CHG contexts varied among species (Table 1; see also Feng et al 2010;Zhong et al 2013), thus suggesting that analyses of methylation at different contexts may be useful to reveal species-specific aspects.…”
Section: Msap Analyses and Global Cytosine Methylation Estimates In Hmentioning
confidence: 99%