Sentence examples for main genotype effect from inspiring English sources

Moreover, there was a significant main genotype effect (Df = 19, F = 5.5, p < 0.05), and interaction between restraint and genotype (Df = 19, F = 6.8, p < 0.05).

In Shank3ΔC mice, response amplitude was similar to wild-type for most of training (main genotype effect, F 1,24) = 1.45, p = 0.2), but culminated in a small reduction by the end of training (0.31 ± 0.02 Shank3+/ΔC vs 0.36 ± 0.01 Shank3+/+, p = 0.03, d′ = 0.38).

Throughout acquisition training, response probability in patDp/+ mice (n = 10) was smaller than wild-type littermates (n = 11) (two-way repeated measures ANOVA: main genotype effect, F 1,19) = 19.84, p = 0.0003), culminating in a difference at the end of training (34.2% ± 2.9% patDp/+ vs, 49.2% ± 2.6% WT, unpaired two-sample t-test, p = 0.001, d′ = 1.46).

Only Shank3+/ΔC mice differed from wild type, showing higher complexity of distal dendrites (two-way repeated measures ANOVA, main genotype effect, F 1,39) = 3.50, p = 0.07), with a significant distance × genotype interaction (F 16,624) = 2.77, p = 0.0002; Figure 6A).

When normalized for the amount of insoluble tau in the sarkosyl-insoluble fraction, analysis by two-way ANOVA (genotype × sex) revealed a main genotype effect with increased phosphorylation of T149, T205, and S199/S202/T205 (Fig.  5c, g, h; Table  1) and decreased phosphorylation of T181 in LRRK2/TauP301L mice compared to TauP301L mice (Fig.  5e; Table  1).

Mecp2R308/Y mice showed consistently smaller learned responses throughout training (two-way repeated measures ANOVA: main genotype effect: F 1,22) = 12.72, p = 0.002), culminating in a difference in amplitude at the end of training (last four training sessions, 0.28 ± 0.02 Mecp2R308/Y in vs 0.44 ± 0.04 WT, unpaired two-sample t-test, p = 0.002, d′ = 1.11).

We evaluated the main genotype effects and genotype-smoking interactions in lung cancer risk overall and in the major histology subtypes.

Time course data were analyzed using two-way ANOVAs with repeated measures; main genotype effects were reported regardless of significance, whereas main session effects (which would indicate a learning effect through time) are significant and session × genotype interactions are not significant unless otherwise indicated.

These models thus provide identical inference concerning the presence (or absence) of interactions, however the parameter estimates for the interactions and main genotype effects vary, as the models vary with respect to which genotype categories should be considered as "baseline" and whether the interaction term is modeled as a "compatibility" or "incompatibility" effect.

Thus, a main significant genotype effect has not been found.

Forty-three of these genes showed both a main genotype and Microcystis effect (Supporting Information Figure S8).