Skip to main content
. 2016 Nov 9;8(12):3600–3617. doi: 10.1093/gbe/evw262

Table 3.

MapComp Results Using Two Different Intermediate Genomes and Comparison with Results from Reciprocal blast

Species Total Markers Map to Rainbow Trout (RT) Genome: No. (%) No. Marker Pairs (RT) Map to Atlantic Salmon (AS) Genome: No. (%) No. Marker Pairs (AS) Recip. Best-Hit blast
Lake Whitefish 3,438 1,156 (33%) 346 1,185 (34%) 609 111
Atlantic Salmon 5,650a 2,776 (49%) 619 3,434 (60%) 1,041 208
Brook Charr 3,826 2,321 (60%) N/A 2,454 (64%) N/A N/A
Rainbow Trout 955 837 (87%) 300 626 (65%) 411 30
Coho Salmon 5,377 3,873 (72%) 813 2,856 (53%) 1,068 182
Chinook Salmon 6,352 4,663 (73%) 907 3,472 (54%) 1,162 190
Pink Salmon 7,035 4,544 (65%) 841 3,481 (49%) 1,129 210
Chum Salmon 6,119 4,150 (67%) 795 3,139 (51%) 1,049 205
Sockeye Salmon 6,262 4,034 (64%) 771 3,138 (50%) 1,061 209

Note.—The number and percentage of markers from each species that map to each genome are shown, along with the number of markers pairs between each species and Brook Charr identified by MapComp. Also shown is the number of homologous markers that would have been found between each species and Brook Charr with a reciprocal best-hit blast approach. Numbers of markers mapping and being paired were similar when tested on the Rainbow Trout (RT) or Atlantic Salmon (AS) genome assemblies. N/A values are present as Brook Charr is not paired against itself.

a

From EST sequences.