Our approach is to introduce a hierarchical model capturing spatial interaction at the second stage using a bivariate Gaussian spatial process.
In contrast, if the interaction is weaker at the first two codon positions then a more specific interaction at the third position may be required.
An interesting aspect of this paper is Figure 2, which shows that the early amino acids are assigned to the codon boxes with the strongest interactions at the first two codon positions.
This approximation consists in truncating the spectral decomposition of the contact interaction matrix at the first spectral component, namely U a, b) ≈ - h(a) h(b), where h(a) indicates the component of the main eigenvector of U a, b) corresponding to amino acid a, which we call the interactivity of amino acid a.
Similarily, the reading of UGA by tRNATrp(CmCA) depends upon a Cm A mismatch at the first position and no unconventional base interactions at the second or third anticodon positions [44].
It is interesting to note that in particular the Snf1 and Hog1 interacts extensively through third order interactions, whereas at the first level it is Snf1 and Pka1 that interacts most extensively.
Some interactions may at the first sight seem cooperative, but the net interaction may turn out not to be cooperative after considering the negative effects of competition (Kim et al., 2008).
Thus, the interaction level found at the third step becomes the interaction level of the new interaction because it is higher than that found in the second step.
Adding sensors to the subarrays reduces the peak side lobe due to the interaction of the first grating lobes at u=1/M+1/N as in other shadings.
Based on a prospectively defined analysis, there was a significant treatment-by-sequence of enrollment interaction for the first patient enrolled at each site compared with all subsequently enrolled patients at that site (P = 0.04).
