Sample type (deep throat swab or sputum) explained only 7% of community variance (p = 0.001), with age group explaining 33% (p = 0.001), suggesting that the method of sample collection did not substantially impact community compositional differences, although differences in the site of sample collection likely explains this low level of variance observed.
Because of the low level of variance at the clinic level, three-level models are presented by dropping the random intercept term for clinic.
The low level of variance we observed in the localization ratio of each Lgl phospho-mutant is consistent with this scenario.
Unlike other classes, a low level of variance was observed in the number of CRY-DASH genes, which suggests that these genes do not have many alternative splicing isoforms.
In fact, the relatively low level of variance explained by the Exploratory Factor Analysis (38%) indicates that there are other domains that impact on QOL, and this is an avenue for further research.
These sites represent those with moderate and low levels of error variance, relative to additive genetic variance, (see Table 4).
It should also be kept in mind that morphological traits generally show low levels of dominance variance and that our results may not be applicable to other types of traits, such as life-history traits, that are known to be affected to a larger extent by dominance and epistatis [4].
A similar pattern was shown for SVSP2 (data not shown) and this is reflected in low levels of molecular variance among populations for these two genes (Table 2).
These SF-36 domains also had wide confidence intervals for mean scores (indicating score inaccuracy) and had low levels of explained variance (r < 0.70).
Concerning duration traits, low levels of genotypic variance (0.8% < σG/σP2 < 8.9%) and high levels of residuals (up to 87.9%) in the phenotypic variation were observed, with an increasing importance of the G × E interaction during bud development (from 0%to20%0%to20%
