Exact(1)
This approach provided us with a range of lineage values to examine the sensitivity of our statistical inferences to taxonomy.
Similar(59)
Phylogenetic analyses of F gene nucleotide sequences of contemporary HRSV and HMPV strains (generated from samples collected since 2007) were constructed as described above for identification of bootstrap-supported monophyletic lineages (values ≥70%) using MEGA v4.0.
Additionally, a robust principal component analysis of ω-lineage values was conducted following the Hubert (2005) approach [ 82], in order to assess the avian opsin outlier map, which summarizes those lineages that show unexpected ω-tendencies in the evolutionary dimensional space of the studied opsins.
The boxplots (Fig. 3a) depict that sw1 ω-lineage values are strongly correlated with the VS/UVS condition in birds, with the accelerated lineages being the most-strongly linked with UVS sensitivity: VS log-odd score = 4.44 – 79.91ω (p-value = 0.046; Wald z-statistics, Additional file 6).
We implemented a phylogenetic logistic regression between the VS and UVS condition in each avian species and the respective ω-lineage value.
Haplotype diversity was very high in all lineages with most lineages showing values above 0.85 (Table 1).
To test this, for each lineage, P values were computed with a 2×2 contingency table using the Fisher exact test.
Doing so, we observed a significant difference in the rate of evolution among the different categories in the hominid lineage (p-value = 0.017) but no difference was observed in the rodent lineage (p-value = 0.59, Fig. 3B).
Lineage-specific values of each property were calculated for all TFs in expressed in our dataset.
Ninety-five genetically distinct haplotypes clustering into three well-supported lineages (bootstrap values 100%) were identified among the 294 isolates from this area.
Lineage-specific values of τγ of human and mouse orthologs were significantly correlated with each other (r = 0.30), suggesting local mutation rate conservation between species.
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