Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(1)
However, some families with R84C mutations have VWS and some families with nonsense mutations have PPS, suggesting a more complicated mechanism.
Similar(59)
Jacob says to Celia, 'Do you have pp 59-72 of book 4?' and she says, 'Yeah, I'll trade you for 73-85.' My kids don't read anything BUT potter, by the way.
In the BI, 80/78% (combined/nuclear data) of the nodes were well supported (PP ≥0.95), 17/17% had PPs between 0.51 and 0.94, and only 2/5% of the nodes were unresolved.
POBD and PKOBD had PP 6.7 °C and 17.7 °C respectively, while POBD Kinematic viscosity (813 kg/m3) agreed with both standards.
Only 60 relevant nodes had PP ≥ 95% whereas 163 had PP ≥ 50% (supplementary table S3, Supplementary Material online).
Half of the participants had PP as the first tester and another half had EG as the first tester.
For the Arthropoda phylum, two monophyletic clades (both having PP = 1.0) are formed from two individual species-specific duplications in the pea aphid and the body louse.
Additional file 3 shows that alpha1 and alpha2 in vertebrates form two monophyletic clades (both having PP = 1.0) and together form a clade (PP = 1.0) to the exclusion of alpha3 - forming its own monophyletic clade (PP = 1.0).
All families in Sylvioidea (excluding monotypic families) had PP 1.00 and ML bootstrap support 100%, except Macrosphenidae and Cettiidae sensu Gill and Donsker [ 1] (Macrosphenidae had PP 1.00 and ML bootstrap 78%; Cettiidae sensu Alström et al. [ 14] had 1.00/100% support).
The topology of the tree estimated from the unpartitioned, single-model data differs in several minor aspects from the one in Figure 1 (Additional file 5), although no incongruence has PP ≥ 0.95 in both analyses.
Figure 4 shows that in the Nematoda phylum, three monophyletic clades are formed by bar1, wrm1, and hmp2 separately (all having PP = 1.0), suggesting two Nematoda-specific phylum duplications.
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