Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(1)
Elevated estimates of marked variances suggested that, by incorporating imprinting effects in to a quantitative genetic model, the proportion of phenotypic variance explained by significant markers increased noticeably.
Similar(59)
With these "uniquely" significant markers, marked variance was then computed according to Eqs. 7 and 8.
Rahier et al. (3) observed marked variance between the body and tail within individuals not seen in a prior study (17) or in our own studies of pancreas procured from brain-dead organ donors.
Although only one marker in each high LD cluster was kept for calculating marked variance in order to reduce bias, caution still needs to be exercised when interpreting this variance since it was obtained from unshrunken estimates of marker effects with simple regression approaches.
Marked variance changed from 1.218 ×10−4 to 1.842 ×10−4 when imprinting was considered in the analysis, implying that one third of marked variance would be lost if existing imprinting effects were not accounted for.
PCA develops the nonlinear mapping in such a way that it maximizes the variance of the data, which helps us in discarding that part of the data which is marked by lesser variances.
However, marked additive genetic variance differs from additive genetic variance (e.g., [ 52, 53]).
In GWAS, summation of 2 p q α across all significant markers gives the total marked additive genetic variance under the assumption of linkage equilibrium between markers.
On subsequent analysis, it became clear that although this study was methodologically well designed, there was marked inter-centre variance in the treatment effect of hypothermia, age of participants, severity of illness scoring between groups, management of intracranial hypertension, and haemodynamic and fluid management [ 64].
When 40% of the genetic variance were marked with four QTL, they found an increase in accuracy for EBV of young bulls in MA-BLUP models of 0.030 compared to the AM model.
There was also a marked reduction in the variance across the replicates for the colorectal DSA compared to the Plus2.0 array suggesting a greater degree of reproducibility for the Colorectal DSA.
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