Table 4

Editing by site and breed background

% Per site, trace data

% Per site, cloned data


LW I

LW C

HxLW I

HxLW C

LW I

LW C

HxLW I

HxLW C


A

53.0 ± 5.9

38.5 ± 4.5

51.3 ± 8.3

46.5 ± 3.9

52.0 ± 10.3

48.3 ± 7.5

53.5 ± 3.8

57.3 ± 6.0

B

41.5 ± 7.1

28.3 ± 4.2

40.8 ± 8.2

36.8 ± 3.5

28.0 ± 10.0

24.3 ± 7.6

27.3 ± 4.6

36.5 ± 2.9

C'

15.8 ± 5.6

11.0 ± 1.1

14.8 ± 3.6

11.5 ± 4.2

10.3 ± 3.4

6.25 ± 2.8

8.75 ± 1.8

9.0 ± 2.5

C

31 ± 11.4

37.8 ± 6.6

38.8 ± 7.8

36.0 ± 1.6

52.3 ± 8.05

48.0 ± 9.1

53.3 ± 6.8

55.3 ± 4.0

D

77.5 ± 5.7

76.3 ± 5.1

77.0 ± 4.8

80.3 ± 3.2

63.0 ± 13.8

67.5 ± 5.4

72.5 ± 3.9

73.8 ± 3.7


Large White pairs (n = 4) compared against Hampshire x Large White pairs (n = 4) using cloned sequence analysis or peak ratio heights in sequence traces. Results in Table 4 are given as the mean ± SEM. No statistically significant differences were observed between the groups based on different breed backgrounds

Quilter et al. BMC Neuroscience 2012 13:37   doi:10.1186/1471-2202-13-37

Open Data