Skip to main content

Table 1 Samples and sequencing coverage

From: Similar genomic proportions of copy number variation within gray wolves and modern dog breeds inferred from whole genome sequencing

Species

Sample

Abbreviation

HMM function

Raw coverage

Effective coverage

aCGH data

Dataset

Diversity analysis

Dog

Chinese indigenous dog

DogCI2

Training

9.83

–

No

Wang et al.

No

Dog

Dingo

din

Analysis

7.09

5.1

No

Freedman et al.

Yes

Dog

Basenji

mba

Analysis

11.8

8.49

Yes

Freedman et al.

Yes

Dog

Kerry Blue Terrier

ali

Analysis

21.28

15.32

No

Fan et al.

Yes

Dog

Boxer

bxr

Analysis

31.27

22.29

No

Fan et al.

Yes

Dog

English cocker

cec

Analysis

11.81

8.5

No

Fan et al.

Yes

Dog

Labrador retriever

dlr

Analysis

12.6

9.07

No

Fan et al.

Yes

Dog

Chinese crest

jcc

Analysis

19.04

13.71

No

Fan et al.

Yes

Dog

Standard poodle

osp

Analysis

12.91

9.29

No

Fan et al.

Yes

Dog

Belgium Malanois

DogBM

Analysis

10.11

7.57

No

Wang et al.

Yes

Dog

German shepherd

DogGS

Analysis

9.56

5.61

No

Wang et al.

Yes

Dog

Tibetan Mastiff

DogTM

Analysis

10.37

5.8

No

Wang et al.

Yes

Gray wolf

Wolf Russia

GW3

Training

11.1

–

No

Wang et al.

No

Gray wolf

Wolf China

chw

Analysis

17.94

12.91

Yes

Freedman et al.

Yes

Gray wolf

Wolf Croatia

crw

Analysis

9.73

6.94

No

Freedman et al.

Yes

Gray wolf

Israeli wolf

isw

Analysis

7.37

5.26

No

Freedman et al.

Yes

Gray wolf

Wolf Great Lakes

glw

Analysis

26.8

19.3

Yes

Fan et al.

Yes

Gray wolf

Wolf India

inw

Analysis

27.42

19.74

Yes

Fan et al.

Yes

Gray wolf

Wolf Iran

irw

Analysis

30.15

21.71

Yes

Fan et al.

Yes

Gray wolf

Wolf Italy

ita

Analysis

7.59

6.07

Yes

Fan et al.

Yes

Gray wolf

Wolf Mexico

mxa

Analysis

25.64

18.46

Yes

Fan et al.

Yes

Gray wolf

Wolf Mexico

mxb

Analysis

7.08

5.66

No

Fan et al.

No

Gray wolf

Wolf Portugal

ptw

Analysis

28.46

20.49

Yes

Fan et al.

Yes

Gray wolf

Wolf Spain

spw

Analysis

28.88

20.79

Yes

Fan et al.

Yes

Gray wolf

Wolf Yellowstone

ysa

Analysis

28.21

20.31

Yes

Fan et al.

Yes

Gray wolf

Wolf Yellowstone

ysb

Analysis

18.82

13.55

Yes

Fan et al.

No

Gray wolf

Wolf Yellowstone

ysc

Analysis

8.44

6.75

Yes

Fan et al.

No

Gray wolf

Wolf China

GW4

Analysis

9.61

6.75

No

Wang et al.

No

Coyote

Coyote California

cac

Training

26.87

19.35

No

Fan et al.

No

Coyote

Coyote Alabama

alc

Analysis

7.69

5.54

No

Fan et al.

No

Coyote

Coyote Midwest

mwc

Analysis

9.11

6.56

No

Fan et al.

No

Jackal

Golden Jackal Kenya

jaa

Analysis

27.47

19.78

Yes

Freedman et al.

No

Red wolf

Red wolf

rwa

Analysis

30.28

21.8

No

Fan et al.

No

Red wolf

Red wolf

rwb

Analysis

7.72

6.17

No

Fan et al.

No

  1. Sequences were retrieved from previously published work from Fan et al. [57], Freedman et al. [4] and Wang et al. [56]. The raw coverage is calculated from the total number of reads before mapping and referred to the 2,413,045,422 bps of the prepared version of CanFam3.1. The effective coverage is calculated after removing poor-quality sequencing lanes and read ends. For 14 samples aCGH data from Ramirez et al. [43] were available. Coyote, jackal and red wolf samples were combined as a single group for the analyses