Table 5.
Synteny comparison between diploid Rosa and Fragaria vesca
| LGs | Populations | Fragaria vesca | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ||
| Diploid Rosa | ||||||||
| 1 | J14-3×LC | 2 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 8 | 0 | 164 |
| J14-3×VS | 0 | 3 | 1 | 6 | 5 | 0 | 144 | |
| OB×RF | 0 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 91 | |
| ICD | 2 | 8 | 5 | 9 | 10 | 1 | 309 | |
| 2 | J14-3×LC | 136 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 134 | 0 |
| J14-3×VS | 160 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 136 | 0 | |
| OB×RF | 197 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 170 | 0 | |
| ICD | 380 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 371 | 0 | |
| 3 | J14-3×LC | 14 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 172 | 0 |
| J14-3×VS | 11 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 104 | 1 | |
| OB×RF | 8 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 64 | 0 | |
| ICD | 27 | 2 | 8 | 5 | 1 | 292 | 1 | |
| 4 | J14-3×LC | 1 | 9 | 9 | 173 | 2 | 4 | 0 |
| J14-3×VS | 4 | 3 | 7 | 205 | 1 | 3 | 0 | |
| OB×RF | 6 | 7 | 7 | 198 | 0 | 2 | 0 | |
| ICD | 11 | 15 | 19 | 465 | 3 | 6 | 0 | |
| 5 | J14-3×LC | 1 | 6 | 235 | 16 | 4 | 2 | 9 |
| J14-3×VS | 2 | 3 | 190 | 16 | 2 | 3 | 8 | |
| OB×RF | 3 | 5 | 258 | 11 | 9 | 6 | 10 | |
| ICD | 4 | 10 | 484 | 26 | 15 | 8 | 15 | |
| 6 | J14-3×LC | 1 | 210 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| J14-3×VS | 1 | 134 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | |
| OB×RF | 0 | 215 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | |
| ICD | 1 | 451 | 8 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 3 | |
| 7 | J14-3×LC | 4 | 5 | 1 | 18 | 194 | 2 | 3 |
| J14-3×VS | 3 | 6 | 4 | 21 | 222 | 1 | 2 | |
| OB×RF | 1 | 5 | 8 | 16 | 210 | 1 | 0 | |
| ICD | 7 | 11 | 12 | 25 | 460 | 4 | 5 | |
The number of markers from each diploid rose linkage group and the consensus map that corresponded to the Fragaria v2.0a1 pseudomolecule assembly is shown. Groups of markers strongly indicating the syntenic linkage groups between Rosa and Fragaria are shown in bold.