We define a cluster state for a class of ODEs to be a partition P i of { 1, …, N } such that the linear subspace I i : = { ( x 1, …, x N ) : x j = x k ⇔ { j, k } are in the same part of P i }. is dynamically invariant for all ODEs in that class.
For each chain C j, we define a cluster which we denote also by C j.
As with the MPFC cluster, a more lenient criterion for defining the cluster resulted in the inclusion of TT voxels from all subjects in the cluster (Supplementary Fig. 5).
Whereas some authors apply a strict cluster definition including only isolates with identical genotypes [ 134, 135, 205, 206], the others advocate the use of slightly relaxed criteria for defining clusters, with a tolerance of a single- or double-band difference in the RFLP profiles and/or SLVs or double locus variations (DLVs) in the MIRU-VNTR profiles [ 52, 200, 207, 208].
It should be noted that the statistical analysis of the cluster was conducted with a method that does not depend on setting specific dates for defining the cluster (see below).
Therefore these residues are not important for defining the cluster N1a potential.
This parameter takes values from 0 for fully heterozygous to 16 for completely homozygous samples and includes this information for re-defining a priori cluster positions for genotype calling.
This t-test was calculated for defining the clusters in the following step.
This is half of the size distance usually used for defining gene clusters.
Barcoding approaches using COI trees for defining species clusters and revealing gaps between intra- and intercluster distance; multi-locus tree-based methods with or without using diagnostic characters; and a couple of newly developed, tree-independent methods for species delineation, all serve as methods for DNA taxonomy.
