Table 3.
Correlation Between WSSD and WGAC
|
|
|
Build29 |
MGSCv3 w/unplaced |
||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WSSD |
WGAC |
Bases |
Fraction |
Regions |
Bases |
Fraction |
Regions |
||||
| + | + | 4,882,018 | 49% | 46 | 11,437,113 | 16% | 159 | ||||
| — | + | 4,058,785 | 41% | 146 | 6,883,852 | 10% | 531 | ||||
| + | — | 967,960 | 10% | 24 | 53,380,584 | 74% | 786 | ||||
| Total
|
|
9,908,763
|
|
|
71,701,549
|
|
|
||||
-
A nonredundant set of duplications detected by WGAC (≤10 kb) was compared against the nonredundant set of duplications detected by WSSD (≤10 kb). The fraction represents the proportion of the duplicated sequence mapped to each of the three categories. A good correlation exists for build29 by these two methods. Most of the duplications in MGSCv3 that were detected only by WSSD mapped to the unknown chromosome and were highly fractured.
