Table 1.
Comparison of different clone-based haplotyping protocols
| Kitzman et al . [11](fosmid) | Suk et al . [12](fosmid) | Peters et al . [13](LFR) | Kaper et al .[14] | Lo et al . [16](BAC) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
n: Number of clones per pool |
5,000 |
5,000 |
5,000 to 10,000a |
16,377b |
5,000 |
|
L: Exp(clone length), kbp |
37 |
40 |
60 |
13.8 |
140 |
|
p: Number of pools |
115 |
288 |
384 |
192 |
24 |
|
c: Exp(clone coverage) =
|
7.1 |
19.2 |
57.6 |
14.5 |
6.0 |
|
cp: Exp(clone coverage per pool) =
|
0.06 |
0.07 |
0.15 |
0.075 |
0.25 |
|
PO: overlap probability =
|
11.31 |
13.06 |
25.92 |
13.93 |
39.35 |
| Exp(haplotype length), bp |
2.05 × 107 |
4.37 × 1010 |
5.30 × 1016 |
4.89 × 109 |
3.42 × 105 |
| Simulated haplotype length, bp |
825,046 |
2,486,692 |
8,585,663 |
300,336 |
2,210,343 |
| Actual haplotype length, bp | 386,000 | 959,175 | 411,000c | 358,000 | 2,640,036 |
Abbreviations: BAC, Bacterial artificial chromosome; LFR, LFR, Long fragment reads.
aEstimated given that each pool contains 300 to 600 Mbp and L = 94,000.
bEstimated by dividing 226 Mbp (number of bases covered in a pool) by L = 13.8 kbp.
cActual haplotype length for NA20431.