LE cleaned data and performed the statistical analyses together with LW.
Consequently, 52%, 42%, and 40% of the July September growing season H and LE data obtained from our EC systems of sites I, II, and III, respectively, were discarded in Experiment 1.
FG TB, CV TB and LE data were compared by using two-sample paired t-tests.
GDP, GNI per capita, THE% and LE data were obtained from the World Bank website (data.worldbank.org) for the years corresponding to the audit.
In YAGM, we collected seven kinds of datasets including TF-gene binding (TFB) data, TF-gene regulation (TFR) data, mutant phenotype (MP) data, functional annotation (FA) data, physical interaction (PI) data, genetic interaction (GI) data, and literature evidence (LE) data.
Although the 40 strains were sequenced on two different NGS platforms (SOLiD and Illumina), false positive and negative call rates based on the LE data (sequenced on both platforms) were similar (Additional file 2).
This method was validated by comparing Family Regulation Profiles generated based on two different randomly selected LE data subsets.
ELN – Elastin, SVAS – supravalvular aortic stenosis, bp – base pair, SNP – single nucleotide polymorphism, in/del – insertion/deletion LE contributed alignment data and observations about divergence and oversaw the project.
BH, AS, and LE collected and assembled data, and JL, KH, and LS were responsible for data analysis and interpretation.
We thank A. Vieillefond for useful comments on the pathological data and F. Le Pimpec-Barthes for including patients.
