Exact(60)
Slopes of the fit lines ranged from 0.98 to 1.00 for tumors and NL.
The half minimal inhibitory concentration (IC50) values of ursolic acid in the four cell lines ranged from 16.76 to 48.12 μmol/L typically at 48 h (Table 1).
The grain width and length of screened lines ranged from 1.7 to 4.6 mm and 3.4 to 14.3 mm, respectively (Additional file 1: Figure S1A and B).
The similarity co-efficiency among all lines ranged from 0.791 to 0.952 suggesting a high level of genetic similarity between the pyramids and Jalmagna.
Integrated analysis with another four NU lines (1, 2, 8, and 9) showed that the ratios of the donor CG14 allelic sites in the NU lines ranged from 1.3 to 9.8%.
The heading dates of the transgenic lines ranged from 46too 51 DAI, which is approximately 40 days earlier than that of TNG67 plants (heading at 89 DAI) (Table 1).
Competitive binding studies were performed using purified FR to determine its affinity for O(4 -BFA.The observed IC(50) for O(4 -BFA.Thebrain tumobservedlIC 50ranged form 0.2 tO 1.3 microM for cells grown in media containing 2.3 microM folic acid.
In the present study, mean temperatures over 30 days after heading for seven years in the 13 early heading lines ranged from 25.5 °C to 27.6 °C with a mean of 26.3 °C whereas those of 83 lines lacking the O. rufipogon qDTH6 QTL ranged from 22.9 °C to 25.7 °C with a mean of 24.1 °C.
The average polymorphic ratio for any given line to the other 631 lines ranged from 19.3% for CML35 to 41.1% for CML186.
Divergence values between lines ranged from DPS = 1 (no alleles in common, for example between Hy, PanRS, and Gitmo versus some of the remaining lines) to DPS = 0.22 (78% of alleles in common, between Vol and Vol2).
The average survival age in the FVB-MetM1248T/L1193V mice was 11.0 months; the average age in the other three lines ranged from 12.6 to 18.3 months (differences with FVB-MetY1228C (p = 0.005) and FVB-MetM1248T p<3×10−66) were statistically significant).
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