|
|
 |
- view and post data anomalies - |
|
|
Post a new report
Go to report:
BAC |
Marker |
Contig |
General |
Resolved
|
|
Reports for BACs:
AC133572 & AC144482 are from two clones from same well
AC133572
AC133572 & AC144482 are from two clones from same well (mth2-10o11). AC133572 has IMGAG annotation.
reported by: Jay Vasdewani, Steven Cannon
top
AC133572 & AC144482 are from two clones from same well
AC144482
AC133572 & AC144482 are from two clones from same well (mth2-10o11). AC133572 has IMGAG annotation.
reported by: Jay Vasdewani, Steven Cannon
top
CR378661 and CR937029 are the same thing; xx10b15 is now 105b15
mth2-105b15
CR378661 was sequenced under bac clone name "xx10b15" . After changing the bac clone name to the correct new name a new accession was given; CR937029 and Mth2-105b15. A marker was mapped called h2_105b15c w/ original accession but now it is associated with CR937029.
reported by: Ryan Bretzel
top
Probable incorrect marker location: overlap indicates LG 1 not 2.
AC137824
AC137824 appears to be on LG 1, not 2 as suggested by marker 004G12. AC137824 overlaps AC150207, which has ~97 kb overlap with AC148098, which has two markers: the CysPr2 (LG 1, cM 2.2) and h2_15b16b (LG 1, cM 2.2).
reported by: S. Cannon
top
AC124961 is mth2-18L5, not mth2-18L7
AC124961
BAC sequence AC124961, annotated as mth2-18L7, contig 1208, instead
appears to be the BAC clone mth2-18L5, contig 1202. Contig 1202 is LG 1, cM ~ 51. Evidence: The primers designed for mth2-18L7 (AC124961) though did not give amplification product from 18L7. BES sequence analysis also showed that the end seq. of 18L7 did not hit the complete sequence of mth2-18L7 (AC124961). However: the two BES of mth2-18L5 BAC (in FPC ctg1202!!) both did hit the complete BAC sequenceAC124961 at the two ends, and also did many other BES from BACs associated with FPC ctg1202.
Contig implications: AC124961 / (false mth2-18L7, really mth2-18L5),
is probably not in contig 1208 but in 1202. Therefore contig 1208 is probably in LG 4 rather than split across 4 and 1.
Also related: marker h2_18l7d is labelled as generated for seq. AC124961.
There is a later GeneBank accession AC139313 associated with BAC mth2-18L7. This complete BAC sequence seems to be the "real" mth2-18L7 since it carries the BES of mth2-18L7 and some other BACs assigned to ctg1208.
reported by: Steven Cannon + anonymous
top
AC124961 is mth2-18L5, not mth2-18L7
mth2-18L7
BAC sequence AC124961, annotated as mth2-18L7, contig 1208, instead
appears to be the BAC clone mth2-18L5, contig 1202. Contig 1202 is LG 1, cM ~ 51. Evidence: The primers designed for mth2-18L7 (AC124961) though did not give amplification product from 18L7. BES sequence analysis also showed that the end seq. of 18L7 did not hit the complete sequence of mth2-18L7 (AC124961). However: the two BES of mth2-18L5 BAC (in FPC ctg1202!!) both did hit the complete BAC sequenceAC124961 at the two ends, and also did many other BES from BACs associated with FPC ctg1202.
Contig implications: AC124961 / (false mth2-18L7, really mth2-18L5),
is probably not in contig 1208 but in 1202. Therefore contig 1208 is probably in LG 4 rather than split across 4 and 1.
Also related: marker h2_18l7d is labelled as generated for seq. AC124961.
There is a later GeneBank accession AC139313 associated with BAC mth2-18L7. This complete BAC sequence seems to be the "real" mth2-18L7 since it carries the BES of mth2-18L7 and some other BACs assigned to ctg1208.
reported by: Steven Cannon + anonymous
top
AC124961 is mth2-18L5, not mth2-18L7
mth2-18L5
BAC sequence AC124961, annotated as mth2-18L7, contig 1208, instead appears to be the BAC clone mth2-18L5, contig 1202. Contig 1202 is LG 1, cM ~ 51. Evidence: The primers designed for mth2-18L7 (AC124961) though did not give amplification product from 18L7. BES sequence analysis also showed that the end seq. of 18L7 did not hit the complete sequence of mth2-18L7 (AC124961). However: the two BES of mth2-18L5 BAC (in FPC ctg1202!!) both did hit the complete BAC sequenceAC124961 at the two ends, and also did many other BES from BACs associated with FPC ctg1202.
Contig implications: AC124961 / (false mth2-18L7, really mth2-18L5), is probably not in contig 1208 but in 1202. Therefore contig 1208 is probably in LG 4 rather than split across 4 and 1.
Also related: marker h2_18l7d is labelled as generated for seq. AC124961. There is a later GeneBank accession AC139313 associated with BAC mth2-18L7. This complete BAC sequence seems to be the "real" mth2-18L7 since it carries the BES of mth2-18L7 and some other BACs assigned to ctg1208.
reported by: Steven Cannon + anonymous
top
mis-mapped BAC? mth2-14p11/AC126782; probably on 3.
AC126782
BAC mth2-14p11 is probably on LG 3, not 5. Trust marker PRTS before 002C05. Overlapping BAC AC147877 is in contig 962, which is placed in LG3 by three markers.
reported by: S. Cannon
top
mis-mapped BAC? mth2-7g7/AC146330; probably on 2 not 5
AC146330
contig 1319 is probably on 2, not 5. Marker conflict between PTSB (5) and h2_7g7a (2) Trust new SSR h27g7a.
reported by: S. Cannon
top
mth2-12n15 is probably on 1, not 5
mth2-12n15
French marker places this on 1, not 5 (communication from Frederic Debelle)
reported by: S. Cannon, Ryan Bretzel, F. Debelle
top
mth2-14k24 is probably on 4
mth2-14k24
LOD score is poor, but new French marker places this BAC on 4 (communication from Frederic Debelle)
reported by: S. Cannon, Ryan Bretzel, F. Debelle
top
h2-14k24 is probably on 4.
h2-14k24
New French marker places this BAC (h2-14k24) on chrom 4 (communication from F. Debelle)
reported by: S. Cannon, Ryan Bretzel, F. Debelle
top
h2-10p14 may be on 2 or 5
h2-10p14
h2_10p14a conflicts with H2_10P14_fr1 from same BAC: chr 5 vs 2. The primer sequences for h2_10p14a do, in fact, come from this BAC, and the LOD score is high (19), but H2_10P14_fr1 places the BAC on 2. Conflict is not resolved.
reported by: S. Cannon, Ryan Bretzel, F. Debelle
top
h2_142n19 is probably on 7, not 5.
h2_142n19
There are now two votes for this BAC on 7 (France, UMN), and one for 5 (UCD mapping tool).
reported by: S. Cannon, Ryan Bretzel, F. Debelle
top
mis-mapped BAC? mth2-24F21/AC136472
AC136472
marker 004F11 may be mis-mapped or mis-associated with mth2-24f21. Two other markers on mth2-24f21/AC136472, 1N1R and Mtic210, map to LG2.
reported by: S. Cannon
top
mis-mapped BAC? mth2-145p5/AC147010
AC147010
BAC-marker association between MTIC361 and mth2-145p5 is suspect. BAC has been re-mapped to 8 with marker h2_145p5b.
reported by: S. Cannon
top
mis-mapped BAC? mth2-16L2/AC122163
AC122163
marker Acco or BAC-marker association with mth2-16L2 are suspect. Four other markers from the sequence contig map to LG 3.
reported by: S. Cannon
top
mis-mapped BAC? mth2-9a7/AC137080
AC137080
mth2-9a7 is probably on LG 6, not 4. Trust new SSR marker h2_9a7e before primer-blast association to TC36028.
reported by: S. Cannon
top
two accessions for clone AC137603/AC141863
AC137603
Two accessions for this clone: AC137603 AC141863
reported by: S. Cannon
top
mis-mapped BAC? mth2-27P4/AC126012
AC126012
AC126012 and AC141110 overlap but first maps to 1 (two markers) and second maps to 5 (two markers).
reported by: S. Cannon
top
mis-mapped BAC? mth2-10k13/AC135232
AC135232
marker or BAC-marker problem for 003B10 / AC135232. AC135232 is on 4 rather than 2 (by BAC overlap and three other markers), so 003B10 may be mis-mapped or misassociated with this BAC.
reported by: S. Cannon
top
CR378661 incorrect GenBank clone name
CR378661
Sanger BAC CR378661 was submitted to GenBank as being from clone XX-10b15. The proper well is 105b15 (discussion with J. Mudge, G. Oldroyd).
Note: Sanger also submitted mth2-105b15 to BAC registry, but that one is not in GenBank. Seems they are the same.
reported by: Steven Cannon
top
Reports for markers:
Probable incorrect marker location: overlap indicates LG 1 not 2.
004G12
AC137824 appears to be on LG 1, not 2 as suggested by marker 004G13. The marker sequence is in this BAC. However, AC137824 overlaps AC150207, which has ~97 kb overlap with AC148098, which has two markers: the CysPr2 (LG 1, cM 2.2) and h2_15b16b (LG 1, cM 2.2).
reported by: S. Cannon
top
marker 006D03 or BAC-marker association is probably incorrect
006D03
marker 006D03 or BAC-marker association is probably incorrect. Three other markers in contig 1202 are near 51 cM / LG 1, and h2_6g7c on the same BAC (mth2-6g7) is at 51.8 cM / LG 1.
reported by: S. Cannon
top
h2_18l7d is from AC139313/mth2-18L5, not AC124961/mth2-18L7
h2_18l7d
Marker h2_18l7d is from AC139313/mth2-18L5 not AC124961/mth2-18L7. BAC sequence AC124961, annotated as mth2-18L7, instead appears to be the BAC clone mth2-18L5, contig 1202. Evidence: The primers designed for mth2-18L7 (AC124961) did not give amplification product from 18L7. BES sequence analysis also showed that the end seq. of 18L7 did not hit the complete sequence of mth2-18L7 (AC124961). However: the two BES of mth2-18L5 BAC (in FPC ctg1202) both did hit the complete BAC sequenceAC124961 at the two ends, and also did many other BES from BACs associated with FPC ctg1202.
reported by: Steven Cannon + anonymous
top
marker or BAC-marker conflict: 002C05/mth2-14P11; probably on LG3
002C05
marker 002C05 or BAC-marker association with mth2-14p11 are suspect. Trust marker PRTS before 002C05. Overlapping BAC AC147877 is in contig 962, which is placed in LG3 by three markers.
reported by: S. Cannon
top
h2_12n15c: this BAC is probably on 1, not 5.
h2_12n15c
French marker for this BAC places this on 1, not 5 (communication from Frederic Debelle)
reported by: S. Cannon, Ryan Bretzel, F. Debelle
top
marker h2_14k24g is probably on 4
h2_14k24g
LOD score is poor, but new French marker places this BAC on 4 (communication from Frederic Debelle)
reported by: S. Cannon, Ryan Bretzel, F. Debelle
top
h2_14k24g: associated BAC is probably on 4.
h2_14k24g
New French marker places this BAC (h2-14k24) on chrom 4 (communication from F. Debelle)
reported by: S. Cannon, Ryan Bretzel, F. Debelle
top
h2_10p14a conflicts with H2_10P14_fr1 from same BAC: chr 5 vs 2
h2_10p14a
h2_10p14a conflicts with H2_10P14_fr1 from same BAC: chr 5 vs 2. The primer sequences for h2_10p14a do, in fact, come from this BAC, and the LOD score is high (19), but H2_10P14_fr1 places the BAC on 2. Conflict is not resolved.
reported by: S. Cannon, Ryan Bretzel, F. Debelle
top
h2_142n19a
h2_142n19a
h2_142n19a: There are now two votes for this BAC on 7 (France, UMN), and one for 5 (UCD mapping tool).
reported by: S. Cannon, Ryan Bretzel, F. Debelle
top
marker or BAC-marker conflict: DK313L/mth2-22L4
DK313L
marker DK313L or BAC-marker or BAC-contig associations may be bad: two flanking markers place this contig on LG 4, not 3
reported by: S. Cannon
top
marker or BAC-marker conflict: 004G11/mth2-14C17
004G11
BAC-contig or BAC-marker association for mth2-14C17 / 004G11 may be in error. BACs mth2-12P22 and mth2-14C17 appear to overlap in fpc contig, but do not by sequence comparison. Two markers from mth2-12P22 map to LG 2; mth2-14c17 maps to LG7.
reported by: S. Cannon
top
marker or BAC-marker conflict: MTIC361/mth2-145p5
MTIC361
BAC-marker association between MTIC361 and mth2-145p5 is suspect. BAC has been re-mapped to 8 with marker h2_145p5b.
reported by: S. Cannon
top
marker or BAC-marker conflict: Acco/mth2-16L2
Acco
marker Acco or BAC-marker association with mth2-16L2 are suspect. F0ur other markers from the sequence contig map to LG 3.
reported by: S. Cannon
top
marker or BAC-marker conflict: TC36028/mth2-9a7
TC36028
BAC-marker association between mth2-9a7 and TC36029 is suspect. Trust new SSR marker h2_9a7e before primer-blast association to TC36028.
reported by: S. Cannon
top
marker or BAC-marker conflict: h2_16l11f/mth2-16l11
h2_16l11f
marker h2_16l11f may be on 2 not 8: two other markers on overlapping BACs are on 2. See mth2-16l11 / AC125474 / DK293R.
reported by: S. Cannon
top
marker or BAC-marker conflict: MTIC419/mth2-7k2
MTIC419
marker or association suspect: mth2-7k2 AC126791 MTIC419. Trust mth2-7k2 AC126791 h2_7k2e instead.
reported by: S. Cannon
top
marker or BAC-marker conflict: 004C03/mth2-31C16
004C03
marker conflict for markers in mth2-31c16: 004C03 004C02 SUSY
reported by: S. Cannon
top
marker or BAC-marker conflict: 004C02/mth2-31c16
004C02
marker conflict for markers in mth2-31c16: 004C03 004C02 SUSY
reported by: S. Cannon
top
marker or BAC-marker conflict: SUSY/mth2-31C16
SUSY
marker conflict for markers in mth2-31c16: 004C03 004C02 SUSY
reported by: S. Cannon
top
marker or BAC-marker conflict: 003B11/mth2-11F7
003B11
marker 003B11 is suspect. Two other markers on same sequence contig map to LG 6: 002H12, h2_13h15a
reported by: S. Cannon
top
marker or BAC-marker conflict: 001F10/mth2-32M22
001F10
marker conflic between 001F10 and DK355L
reported by: S. Cannon
top
marker or BAC-marker conflict: DK355L/mth2-32M22
DK355L
marker conflic between 001F10 and DK355L
reported by: S. Cannon
top
marker or BAC-marker conflict: DK381L/mth2-21i24
DK381L
marker conflict between DK381L and 003E05 due to translocation?
reported by: S. Cannon
top
marker or BAC-marker conflict: 003E05/mth2-21I24
003E05
marker conflict between DK381L and 003E05 due to translocation?
reported by: S. Cannon
top
marker or BAC-marker conflict: 002E09/mth2-27P4
002E09
unresolved conflicts between 002E09 and h2_27p4a (on 1) and 006A06 and h2_17i10c (on 5). AC126012 and AC141110 overlap but first maps to 1 (two markers) and second maps to 5 (two markers).
reported by: S. Cannon
top
marker or BAC-marker conflict: DK360R/mth2-18o15
DK360R
marker conflict between h2_36o3c (5) and DK224R (7). BAC mth2-36o3 (h2_36o3c; 5) overlaps mth2-22e9 (DK224R; 7).
reported by: S. Cannon
top
marker or BAC-marker conflict: h2_36o3c/mth2-36o3
h2_36o3c
marker conflict between h2_36o3c (5) and DK224R (7). BAC mth2-36o3 (h2_36o3c; 5) overlaps mth2-22e9 (DK224R; 7).
reported by: S. Cannon
top
marker or BAC-marker conflict: 002D08/mth2-24F5
002D08
marker conflict for two markers on mth2-45f5: 002D08 (7), h2_24f5b (8)
reported by: S. Cannon
top
marker or BAC-marker conflict: h2_24f5b/mth2-24f5
h2_24f5b
marker conflict for two markers on mth2-45f5: 002D08 (7), h2_24f5b (8)
reported by: S. Cannon
top
marker or BAC-marker conflict: 003B10/mth2-10k13
003B10
marker or BAC-marker problem for 003B10 / AC135232. AC135232 is on 4 rather than 2 (by BAC overlap and three other markers), so 003B10 may be mis-mapped or misassociated with this BAC.
reported by: S. Cannon
top
marker or BAC-marker conflict: 001D04/mth2-6B12
001D04
marker conflict between 001D04 (2) and 002D04,EPS,DK363L (4). Marker 001D04 or BAC-marker association with mth2-6b12 may be incorrect; trust EPS and DK363L instead.
reported by: S. Cannon
top
marker or BAC-marker conflict: h2_7g7a/mth2-7g7
h2_7g7a
Marker conflict between PTSB (5) and h2_7g7a (2) Trust new SSR h27g7a.
reported by: S. Cannon
top
c_032m20 is on 4 OR 8
c_032m20
Mapmaker places equally well on 4 and 8 (Davis mapping tool places on 8). Source accession, AC146792, is on 4 or 8
reported by: Ryan Bretzel
top
Reports for contigs:
probable contig split for 950: left 2, mid 1, right 6
950
contig 950 probably splits: left on 2, mid on 1 (see notes for AC150207) right on 6.
reported by: S. Cannon
top
probable contig split for 995
995
contig 995 probably splits: left on 7, mid on 1, right on 4.
Additional notes re. location of middle of chromosome on LG 1:
"The right end of FPC ctg1202 hits the middle of ctg995.
The position of many of the BAC clones assigned to ctg1202 was confirmed, genetic markers generated on BAC ends of 13H19 and 27F15 showed tight linkage with the two previous markers DSI and 001h03. The Rev end of BAC mth2-21B7 proved to be the most-right end segment of this contig and was used in hybridization to find the next overlapping BAC(s). The two BACs identified by this fragment (31C13 and 41C20) were located in the middle of ctg995 as they are labelled in the attached file. Though the two ends of this contig (ctg995) were mapped in LG7 and LG4, respectively, the BACs in the middle part within the vertical bars proved to be the real continuation of ctg1202 in LG1. I could "jump" further from the right ends of these BACs (within the bars) to another contig, but the analysis of this new contig is still in progress."
reported by: S. Cannon + anonymous
top
1208 is probably in LG 4, not 4 + 1.
1208
AC124961 / (false mth2-18L7, really mth2-18L5), is probably not in contig 1208 but in 1202. Therefore contig 1208 is probably in LG 4 rather than split across 4 and 1. Why: Marker h2_18l7d is from AC139313/mth2-18L5 not AC124961/mth2-18L7. BAC sequence AC124961, annotated as mth2-18L7, instead appears to be the BAC clone mth2-18L5, contig 1202. Evidence: The primers designed for mth2-18L7 (AC124961) did not give amplification product from 18L7. BES sequence analysis also showed that the end seq. of 18L7 did not hit the complete sequence of mth2-18L7 (AC124961). However: the two BES of mth2-18L5 BAC (in FPC ctg1202) both did hit the complete BAC sequenceAC124961 at the two ends, and also did many other BES from BACs associated with FPC ctg1202.
reported by: Steven Cannon + anonymous
top
probable contig split for 351; probably on LG3
351
contig 351 is probably on LG 3, not 5. Trust marker PRTS before 002C05. Overlapping BAC AC147877 is in contig 962, which is placed in LG3 by three markers.
reported by: S. Cannon
top
contig position unknown for 1201 - but probably on 7.
1201
contig 1201 has mapping conflicts: may be on 5, and/or 7. Several BACs are on 7. UCD tool says 5, but markers in this region are problematic.
reported by: S. Cannon
top
probable contig split for 963
963
contig 963 may split: left on 5, right on 1. See mth2-9j10 / AC139747 / h2_9j10c.
Also, a note from Becca Dickstein (beccad@unt.edu), and attached file:
About the right end of contig 963: my data indicate that it is actually 2 contigs.
The first is part of contig 963 and contains at least these clones: 15J20, 072J21, 008E03, 101I13, 162L15, and 139C14.
But, my data also indicate that 165L08, 068L24, 156A22, 056N13, and 001A13 are not linked to contig 963, but are linked together.
What I did: I ordered all the above 11 clones from the BAC repository and ordered primers that would amplify the end sequences of each clone for which end sequences were available (7 clones, total of 14 ends). For 15J20, we used the 3C01 primer set that is also a genetic marker. I then did PCR reactions with each primer set across theset of 11 BACs (with BeloBAC as a negative control). Note that one of the primer sets for BAC 068L24 (corresponding to sequence CG974448) failed. The results are attached: a + (plus sign) in the table indicates that a PCR product was obtained from that BAC as template.
contig 963 report - Becca Dickstein
reported by: S. Cannon
top
probable contig split for 29
29
contig 26 maps to LGs 4 and 8 (translocation?)
reported by: S. Cannon
top
probable contig split for 46
46
contig 26 maps to LGs 5 and 3 (probably due to marker or marker-BAC problem for DK313L)
reported by: S. Cannon
top
probable contig split for 51
51
contig 51 probably splits: left on 4 (marker 005B01), right on 2 (markers 005F07, 005E03)
reported by: S. Cannon
top
probable contig split for 71
71
contig 71 may split, or BAC-contig or BAC-marker association for mth2-14C17 / 004G11 may be in error. BACs mth2-12P22 and mth2-14C17 appear to overlap in fpc contig, but do not by sequence comparison. Two markers from mth2-12P22 map to LG 2; mth2-14c17 maps to LG7.
reported by: S. Cannon
top
probable contig split for 103
103
contig 103 probably splits: left on LG 7, rest on 1 and 3.
reported by: S. Cannon
top
probable contig split for 111
111
contig 111 maps to LGs 4 and 8 (translocation?)
reported by: S. Cannon
top
probable contig split for 115
115
contig 115 may split (right 1, left 8) and/or BAC mth2-24f16 may be in contig 981 rather than 115.
reported by: S. Cannon
top
probable contig split for 135
135
contig 135 maps to LGs 4 and 8 (translocation?). Three markers on mth2-11o4
reported by: S. Cannon
top
probable contig split for 158
158
contig 158 probably maps to 8, not 2. New SSR marker h2_145p5 should be trusted over primer-blast association with MTIC361.
reported by: S. Cannon
top
probable contig split for 958
958
contig 958 probably splits: mid on 2,
reported by: S. Cannon
top
probable contig split for 974
974
contig 974 probably splits: left on 3, right on 5 or 6. See mth2-27D17 AC137079 003C08 mth2-27d17 AC137079 h2_27d17c
reported by: S. Cannon
top
probable contig split for 979
979
contig 979 probably splits: left on 4, right on 7.
reported by: S. Cannon
top
probable contig split for 984
984
contig 984 probably splits: left on 7, right on 3.
reported by: S. Cannon
top
probable contig split for 988
988
contig 988 probably splits: left on 1, right on 8.
reported by: S. Cannon
top
probable contig split for 1004
1004
contig 1004 probably splits: left on 2, mid on 1, right on 4.
reported by: S. Cannon
top
probable contig split for 1008
1008
contig 1008 probably splits: left on 4, right on 5.
reported by: S. Cannon
top
probable contig split for 1022
1022
contig 1022 probably splits several ways: left on 6, mid on 1, etc.
reported by: S. Cannon
top
probable contig split for 1038
1038
contig 1038 probably splits: left on 2, mid on 3, right on 4.
reported by: S. Cannon
top
probable contig split for 1045
1045
contig 1045 probably splits: left on 2, 5, or 8 (marker conflict), mid on 1
reported by: S. Cannon
top
probable contig split for 1064
1064
contig 1064 probably splits: left of 5, mid and right on 4.
reported by: S. Cannon
top
probable contig split for 1084
1084
contig 1084 probably splits: left on 5, right on 4.
reported by: S. Cannon
top
probable contig split for 1095
1095
contig position unknown because two accessions for mth2-14b10.
reported by: S. Cannon
top
contig position unknown for 1108
1108
contig on 4 or 8 (marker conflict due to translocation?)
reported by: S. Cannon
top
probable contig split for 1114
1114
contig may be on 1 or 5; markers conflict.
reported by: S. Cannon
top
probable contig split for 1117
1117
contig 1117 probably splits: left on 4, right on 5.
reported by: S. Cannon
top
probable contig split for 1132
1132
contig 1132 probably splits: left on 3, right on 8.
reported by: S. Cannon
top
probable contig split for 1202
1202
contig 1202 probably splits: left on 7, right on 1.
reported by: S. Cannon
top
contig position unknown for 1208; unusual depth
1208
contig 1208 may be repetitive (depth of 50 BACs), and maps to LGs 1, 4, 5.
reported by: S. Cannon
top
probable contig split for 1210
1210
contig probably splits: left on 8, right on 4
reported by: S. Cannon
top
probable contig split for 1218
1218
contig 1218 is probably on 2, but may be on 8. Two markers on AC144656 map to 2; marker on overlapping BAC AC144727 maps to 8.
reported by: S. Cannon
top
probable contig split for 1230
1230
contig 1230 probably splits: left on 3, mid on 8.
reported by: S. Cannon
top
probable contig split for 1245
1245
contig appears to be on 4 rather than 2. marker or BAC-marker problem for 003B10 / AC135232. AC135232 is on 4 rather than 2 (by BAC overlap and three other markers), so 003B10 may be mis-mapped or misassociated with this BAC.
reported by: S. Cannon
top
probable contig split for 1270
1270
contig 1270 probably splits: left on 3 and/or 5 (marker conflict), right on 8.
reported by: S. Cannon
top
probable contig split for 1276
1276
contig 1276 probably splits: left on 1, right on 4
reported by: S. Cannon
top
probable contig split for 1296
1296
contig 1296 probably splits: left on 6, right on 4
reported by: S. Cannon
top
probable contig split for 1305
1305
contig 1305 may be on 4 or 8 (translocation?)
reported by: S. Cannon
top
probable contig split for 1318
1318
contig 1318 is probably on 4 rather than 2. Marker 001D04 or BAC-marker association with mth2-6b12 may be incorrect; trust EPS and DK363L instead.
reported by: S. Cannon
top
probable contig split for 1319
1319
contig 1319 is probably on 2, not 5. Marker conflict between PTSB (5) and h2_7g7a (2) Trust new SSR h27g7a.
reported by: S. Cannon
top
Bogus contig report
72
Just for testing
reported by: eksc
top
MtR2 ctg
985
Two BACs in contig (center) hyb with MtR2: mth2-24l11
mth2-81b12
reported by: S. Cannon, S. Wang
top
ctg edge is MtR2-rich
236
These BACs, edge of contig, contain MtR2: 106f14 11a22 32i16 65l9 75a21
reported by: S. Cannon, S. Wang
top
All BACs in ctg hyb with MtR3 or MtR2
715
All BACs in ctg hyb with MtR3 or MtR2
reported by: Shelley Wang
top
weird deep (centromeric?) ctg
1365
Depth > 1300 BACs - contig 1365, LG 4 (+3 and 7?). Three BACs are positive (library hyb) for MtR2, one positive for MtR1
reported by: Steven Cannon
top
edge of ctg is MtR2-rich
72
Five BACs at edge of contig hyb with MtR2: mth2-106d12 26d22 31b17 85g1 90a20
reported by: S. Cannon, S. Wang
top
Reports for general anomalies:
mth2-12n15 is probably on 1, not 5
French marker for this BAC places this on 1, not 5 (communication from Frederic Debelle)
reported by: S. Cannon, Ryan Bretzel, F. Debelle
top
file of MtR123 repeats
file of MtR123 repeats - Excel - Shelley, Roxanne Oct 12 2004
excel file - repeat seqs in contigs
reported by: Shelley Wang
top
|
|
|
