The genetic map is built . Genetic distances ranged from 999.2 to 1350.1 cM (Table 1). The average Pearson’s correlation (r) between physical and genetic positions ranged from 0.86 to 0.95 genome-wide, and genetic maps covered 94.3% to 99.1% of the reference genome (supplementary file 1-4). Each parental genetic map was similar within each chromosome, but there were some regions that failed to recombine in a specific parent. This might due to structural variation in the genome, for example region on chromosome 1 between 4 - 12 Mbp for the female parental map of the MN family (Figure 4).
meta-consus useful --> return data, polymorphic and segregated follow expected medienial segregation ratio. ]
Consensus genetic map
A consensus genetic map was constructed using 600 vines (150 vines from each family) and 1,969 markers, of which 83% mapped (Table 2). The total sex-averaged genetic distance of the consensus map was 1,198.1 cM, about 0.38 Mb/cM. Markers in the consensus map provided genome coverage of 99.1%, with the largest gap being 9.28 cM or ~3.5 Mb. The average Pearson’s correlation (r) between physical and genetic positions was 0.95 across all chromosomes (supplementary file 5).
GWAS for flower sex
A total of 1,712 and 1,784 post-imputed and filtered markers were analyzed for association with flower sex trait measured in 157 and 509 vines from the HC and RS families, respectively. Trait segregation ratios of 71:76 and 86:18 matched expectations of 1:1 for HC and 3:1 for RS, respectively, based on non-significance in a chi-squared test. Thirteen and seventeen markers, respectively, significantly predicted flower sex after Bonferroni multiple comparisons correction. Marker chr2_4825658 (chromosome 2 at position 4,825,658 bp) was the most significant marker in both HC (P < 9.6E-17) and RS (P < 2.8E-09) family, explaining 82.0% and 50.4% of the phenotypic variation, respectively (Figure 5).
[CL1]This is a result, moved from discussion.
[CL2]I think this is the right place for this sentence from above, but I am not sure where the 99% number comes from – it seems high. I revised based on the previous sentence and markers that fail to return data.