Table 3.
Results from Association Group |
||||||
A |
B |
C |
||||
Sample (Region) | C→T, A→G | G→A, T→C | C→T, G→A | A→G, T→C | C→T, T→C | A→G, G→A |
DinornisCR (16733–00441) | 1 | 1 | 1j | 2 | 2j | |
DinornisCOII (COII) | 1 | |||||
Dinornis (11120–11958) | 1 | 1 | ||||
Emeus16s (16s) | 1 | |||||
EmeusCOI (COI) | 1 | |||||
EmeusCOIII (COIII) | 1 | 1 | ||||
EmeusND4/5 (ND4/ND5) | 1 | 1, 1j | ||||
EmeusCOII (COII) | 1 | |||||
EmeusCytb (cytb) | 1 | 2 | ||||
Ursus221a | 1 | |||||
Ursus222 | 1 | |||||
Ursus223a | 1 | 1 | ||||
Ursus147 | 1 | 1 | ||||
Ursus221b | 1 | |||||
Ursus3500 | 2 | |||||
Ursus117001 | 1 | |||||
Ursus151a | 1 | 1j | ||||
Tg233 (HVRI) | 1 | |||||
Tg232 (HVRI) | 1 | 1j | ||||
Tg116 (HVRI) | 2j | 1j | ||||
Tg114 (HVRI) | 1j | 1j | 1j | 1j | ||
Tg103 (HVRI) | 2 | 2j | ||||
Tg54 (HVRI) | 1j | |||||
Tg145 (HVRI) | 1 | |||||
Tg44 (HVRI) | 1 | |||||
Tg149 (HVRI) | 3j, 2 | 2j | 3j, 3 | 2j, 1 | ||
Tg137a (HVRI) | 1 | |||||
Tg112 (HVRI) | 1 | |||||
Tg105 (COIII) | 1 | |||||
Tg63 (COIII) | 1 | 1 | ||||
Tg148 (HVRI) | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||
Tg136a (HVRI) | 1j | 1 | ||||
Tg147 (HVRI) | 1j, 2 | |||||
Tg85 (HVRI) | 1 | 1j | ||||
Tg93 (HVRI) | 1, 1j | |||||
Tg148 (COIII) | 1 | 1j | ||||
Tg143 (HVRI) | 1 | |||||
Tg129 (HVRI) | 1j | |||||
Tg123 (HVRI) | 2j | |||||
Results from Association Group |
||||||
A |
B |
C |
||||
Individual Totals | C→T, A→G | G→A, T→C | C→T, G→A | A→G, T→C | C→T, T→C | A→G, G→A |
Identified jumps | 7 | 0 | 7 | 5 | 9 | 6 |
Nonidentified jumps | 22 | 6 | 7 | 2 | 16 | 2 |
Results from Association Group |
||||||
Group Totals | A | B | C | |||
Results from Association Group |
||||||
Group Totals | A | B | C | |||
Associations per group | 35 | 21 | 33 | |||
Jumps | 7 | 12 | 15 | |||
Nonjumps | 28 | 9 | 18 | |||
Nonjump:jump ratio | 4 | .75 | 1.2 |
Note.— The three association groups are each divided into two subgroups named according to the two different base modifications observed together on same cloned sequence. A “j” after the numeral denotes direct evidence of jumping as identified following the conventional method (e.g., Pääbo 1989), in which different cloned sequences sharing a proportion of damaged sites are deemed to have arisen because of jumping PCR. These are termed here as “identified jumps”; nonidentified jumps are those that cannot be identified following the conventional methods.