2017
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Abstract: SummaryWheat breeders and academics alike use single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) as molecular markers to characterize regions of interest within the hexaploid wheat genome. A number of SNP‐based genotyping platforms are available, and their utility depends upon factors such as the available technologies, number of data points required, budgets and the technical expertise required. Unfortunately, markers can rarely be exchanged between existing and newly developed platforms, meaning that previously generate… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
15
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(52 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
(52 reference statements)
2
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We could directly associate on average 95.7% of our previously defined GCs with GC events in the sequencing data that were on average 29,992,400 bp in length with 61.2% of events < 20 Mbp (Table 1). Furthermore, on average, we could validate 83.0% of the specific array SNP alleles that were used to define GCs and given the reported agreement rates of 85.7% for SNP arrays when compared to sequencing data by Burridge et al [5]; this is in line with expectations. Using the array, the reason for our ability to identify GCs in low-resolution genotyping data is that we typically detect the larger GC events whereas whole genome sequencing gives the ability to robustly detect shorter GC events across the genome.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 85%
“…We could directly associate on average 95.7% of our previously defined GCs with GC events in the sequencing data that were on average 29,992,400 bp in length with 61.2% of events < 20 Mbp (Table 1). Furthermore, on average, we could validate 83.0% of the specific array SNP alleles that were used to define GCs and given the reported agreement rates of 85.7% for SNP arrays when compared to sequencing data by Burridge et al [5]; this is in line with expectations. Using the array, the reason for our ability to identify GCs in low-resolution genotyping data is that we typically detect the larger GC events whereas whole genome sequencing gives the ability to robustly detect shorter GC events across the genome.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 85%
“…We could directly associate on average 95.7% of our previously defined GCs with GC events in the sequencing data that were on average 29,992,400bp in length with 61.2% of events <20Mbp ( Table 2). Furthermore on average we could validate 83.0% of the specific array SNP alleles that were used to define GCs and given the reported agreement rates of 85.7% for SNP arrays when compared to sequencing data by Burridge et al (2017), this is in line with expectations. Using the array, the reason for our ability to identify GCs in low-resolution genotyping data is that we typically detect the larger GC events whereas whole genome sequencing gives the ability to robustly detect shorter GC events across the genome.…”
Section: Using Whole Genome Sequencing To Validate Our Array Based Cosupporting
confidence: 80%
“…Leaf tissue was harvested 4 weeks after germination, frozen in liquid nitrogen and stored at −20°C prior to nucleic acid extraction. Genomic DNA was prepared using a phenol–chloroform extraction method (Burridge et al, 2017), treated with RNase-A (QIAGEN Ltd., Manchester, UK) according to the manufacturer's instructions and purified using the QiaQuick PCR purification kit (QIAGEN Ltd).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%