Exact(5)
By limiting ourselves to Gene Ontology terms whose total prevalence in all the genes included in the expression dataset is lower than a given threshold M, we can make the majority rules imply statistical overrepresentation.
The pairwise sequence similarity in the dataset is lower than 40%.
This result could be explain by the read lengths were different (50 bp vs 75 pb) and SOLiD dataset is lower in quality, only 50 60% of reads mapped against a transcriptome reference [ 27, 28].
The number of shared motifs in the SEREX-ovarian dataset is lower than that in the Meta-UP collection, although comparable numbers of sequences were analyzed (81 in SEREX-ovarian and 86 in Meta-UP).
While the bias observed in this dataset is lower than techniques such as mass spectrometry, it is still present (e.g. tail-anchored membrane proteins are expected to be under-represented).
Similar(55)
the actual mortality in our dataset was lower than that reported elsewhere, and significantly the SMR was less than one.
The proportion of cases with complete data in each simulated dataset was lower than that in the full dataset – 27percentt (1447 of 5443) compared with 49percentt (5443 of 11 211).
This result suggests that, on average, the transcript levels of the genes included in the singleton dataset are lower than those included in the assembled contigs.
Second, the variability "captured" for the mineral from the samples in this dataset was lower compared to variability measured for other blood parameters.
Mapping quality of 454 dataset was lower that the ones of the other two: mean and median mapping were both about 54%, and less than 3% had mapping above 95%.
Both SNPs and SSRs performed well in detecting the main subpopulations (K = 3): V. vinifera (Sativa and Sylvestris) and Rootstocks (Vitis ssp .. Except for K = 2, where both marker types showed a high percentage of individuals assigned to populations, all assignment percentages for the SNP dataset were lower than for the SSR dataset (Additional file 1: Table S6).
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