Here, with the aim of gaining deeper mechanistic understanding of tight junction assembly, regulation and function, we have subdivided the known molecular interactions into four major clusters that are centered on cell surface, polarity, cytoskeletal and signaling molecules.
The network generated by HiMAP from this list of genes was redrawn using Ingenuity (Fig. 5D) and contained three major clusters that were largely composed of predicted, rather than known, interactions.
STRUCTURE analysis detected four major clusters that closely corresponded to the four geographic subregions.
Clusters 3 and 4 are two major clusters that collectively include 63% of all differentially expressed unisequences.
Likewise, the two major clusters that include the type strains of S. mitis and S. oralis both include several sub-clusters, which may warrant recognition as separate species.
There were three major clusters that consisted in the partitioning of the M-form into west, central, and south clusters, thus confirming the results of the nonspatial analyses.
These trees showed that the 7TMR-DISMs were divided into two major clusters that corresponded to forms fused to either 7TMR-DISMED1 or 7TMR-DISMED2 atheirir N-termini.
Unsupervised hierarchical clustering based on the most variable 87 miRNAs (with standard deviation ≥ 0.75) revealed two prominent cell line clusters: a minor cluster that included 18 cell lines and a major cluster that included 33 cell lines.
Thus, compared with drug-susceptible human isolates, drug-resistant human isolates were significantly more likely to occur within a subcluster, or major cluster, that also contained poultry isolates (p<0.001 for each comparison).
This resulted in 8 major clusters that we term functional equivalent pathogroups (FEP).
