For coding regions, the remarkably high proportions of variability of rps19 were observed in all five Camellia cp genomes.
However, the highest proportion of variability in genic regions was 0.251% (rps8) (Fig. 6; Additional file 3).
The highest proportion of variability explained by the treatments, expressed as R averaged across traits and treatments, was recorded for I. glandulifera (0·47), followed by I. parviflora (0·37), I. noli-tangere (0·25) and I. capensis (0·23).
The results indicate that there are differences among sires' daughter groups, but the differences are not large enough to control a high proportion of the variability.
30 Our multivariate model explained a high proportion of the variability (60 70%) in arterial dysfunction between patients taking diclofenac and ibuprofen.
Our analyses of gene expression data from disc tissue also showed a significant, positive linear relationship between cathepsin K and RANKL expression which accounted for a high proportion of the variability in this relationship (92.2%, Figure 2).
We adjusted for several important cardiovascular and rheumatological factors known to be independently associated with arterial function and our multivariate analysis explained a high proportion of the variability in arterial dysfunction among chronic ns-NSAID users.
As we have explained previously, BCSQ-36 and BCSQ-12 were able to explain a high proportion of the variability contained in the criterion dimensions of the standard MBI-GS, although they were significantly higher in BCSQ-36, as we had established initially as a working hypothesis.
Consistent with other studies [ 22], all three of our derived equations using different resistance indices (height/resistance 50 kHz (H/R50), height/estimated resistance at infinity (H/R∞) and height/impedance at characteristic frequency (H/Zc) included sex and weight and explained a high proportion of the variability in FFM (86 to 96%).
There was also a relationship with progressive disease (P-value<0.0001, R=38%) and time to progression (P-value <0.0001, R=56%); the latter suggesting that a moderately high proportion of the variability in the treatment effect on survival can be explained by the treatment effect on time to progression.
