The average proportion of gene expression variance (standard deviation) explained by the most significant haplotype partitions at FCGR2B, LMO2 and PCNA was 26% (7%).
This figure shows that, for a particular value of x, the distance of y from the mean of y (the total deviation) is the sum of the distance of the fitted y value from the mean (the deviation explained by the regression) and the distance from y to the line (the deviation not explained by the regression).
For a particular observation x, the difference between x and the grand mean can be split into two parts as follows: x - grand mean = (treatment mean - grand mean) + (x - treatment mean) Total deviation = deviation explained by treatment + unexplained deviation (residual) This is analogous to the regression situation (see statistics review 7 [ 3]) with the treatment mean forming the fitted value.
These deviations were explained by the effect of the microstructure and particularly by the configurational heterogeneity of the copolymer chains.
The relatively high standard deviations can be explained by the dishomogeneous characteristics of the stone substrate.
The reasons for this high standard deviations can be explained by the following arguments: (1) The electrical futures of these gels depend strictly on the swelling ratio of the gels as can be seen from Fig. 3 and from the detailed discussion given in a recent work [17] and (2) on the internal morphology (nonergodicity or random distribution of the heterogeneous regions in the gels).
The small quantitative deviations can be explained by the use of a simplified model for the functioning of Rpt peptides (multiplication of the parameter v in by a constant factor), which is expected to be more complex in reality.
The average proportion (standard deviation) of gene expression variance explained by individually significant SNPs in the SNP-wise regression analysis [see Additional file 3] in this study was 21% (7%).
Although the data for D03IB068 and D10IB049 slightly deviate from the mixing line between SW and IFSW, the deviation can be explained by the addition of a very small amount of a GCR-produced component, corresponding to about 5 Myr and 0.1 Myr exposure for D03IB068 and D10IB049, respectively.
For the survival models, 32 and 29% of absolute martingale residual deviation can be explained by the model, and these indicators are relatively fine indicating good model fit.
