Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(6)
The dCHIP t-test function was used to identify genes whose expression differed significantly (p<0.05) and these genes were then filtered to select for those that showed a twofold or greater change and a 90% confidence bound of fold change.
a Lower bound of fold change (microarray experiment).
a agp6 agp11 to wild type lower bound of fold change.
We considered genes to be differentially expressed between samples, when the lower bound of fold change (LBFC) was at least 2, with a confidence of 90%.
We evaluated the methods using datasets simulated to present different scenarios corresponding to a given combination of the following parameters: sample size (5 or 10), proportion of differentially expressed genes (5% or 10%), ratio of up-regulated vs. down-regulated (1 1 or 3 1), lower bound of fold change (1.5 or 1.1), and lower bound of depth (5 or 1).
For a given gene m, the fold change is calculated as (ρ m + ρ * ) d m where ρ m is drawn from the gamma distribution with shape parameter 0.87 and rate parameter 1.36 (parameters are estimated from the TCGA breast cancer dataset), ρ * is the lower bound of fold change, and d m = 1, if gene m is upregulated - 1, if gene m is downregulated 0, otherwise.
Similar(54)
Genes compared were considered to be differentially expressed if the 90% lower confidence bound of the fold change between experiment and baseline was above 1.3.
The following three columns (7 to 8) depict, if a gene is selectively and /or enriched expressed in root hairs and pollen, followed by the average of the lower confidence bound of the fold change (FC) for apical growing cells.
Gene symbol, fold change, direction of fold change, and presence of CRE sites (CRE) are indicated.
The correlation of fold changes was 0.62.
In addition, to determine the cutoff value of fold changes, we computed fold changes of randomly permuted samples and fitted a Gaussian distribution to the random fold changes.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com