TABLE 1.
Pina | Pinb | Both Pins | |
---|---|---|---|
Mutation frequency via direct phenotyping and sequencinga | |||
Missense | 37 | 31 | 68 |
Nonsense | 11 | 12 | 23 |
Silent | 23 | 34 | 57 |
Total | 71 | 77 | 148 |
Mutation frequency via sequencingb | |||
Missense | 33 | 27 | 60 |
Nonsense | 6 | 9 | 15 |
Silent | 23 | 32 | 55 |
Total | 62 | 68 | 130 |
Mutation densityc | 1/12 kb | 1/11 kb | 1/11.5 kb |
Observed mutation class ratios | |||
Missense | 0.53 | 0.4 | 0.46 |
Nonsense | 0.1 | 0.13 | 0.12 |
Silent | 0.37 | 0.47 | 0.42 |
Expected mutation class ratiosd | |||
Missense | 0.56 | 0.55 | 0.56 |
Nonsense | 0.1 | 0.11 | 0.1 |
Silent | 0.34 | 0.34 | 0.34 |
Chi-square P-valuee |
0.52 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
Total cumulative mutation frequency found via phenotyping of 630 and direct sequencing of 1700 M2 Alpowa lines.
The frequency of mutations found by direct sequencing of 1700 M2 Alpowa lines.
The mutation density was calculated using the frequency of mutations found via direct sequencing of 1700 M2 Alpowa lines.
Expected ratio of three types of mutations from total was calculated using all potential nucleotide substitutions expected from EMS-induced transition mutations (G to A or C to T).
P-values are from chi-square tests that were used to compare the number of observed and expected mutation types.