Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(8)
Of the 13 S100 genes, S100A4 had the highest mean tag count for ependymoma relative to normal brain with a fold change of 20.7 and S100A10 had the highest mean tag count of 133 in ependymoma.
For heat map representations of the RNAPII data, the data was transformed to represent the log2 fold change of the condition-specific tag count relative to the mean tag count observed for all four RNAPII tracks (e.g., log2 [tags in condition #1/mean tag count at the RNAPII peak for all conditions]).
The tag abundance requirement of a mean tag count of 20 TPM was used to filter the list of tags prior to statistical comparison to reduce the number of false positives.
The authors restrict their testing to tags with a "mean tag count of ≥20 tags per million (TPM) in at least one of never, former or current smoker SAGE libraries".
When the data was then filtered for tags meeting the criteria ⩽0.5 mean tag count in normal brain but >2 tags in ependymoma, the uncharacterised gene C1orf192 showed the highest difference in expression of 17.3 (Table 3).
(4) The mean tag count for each S100 gene was calculated across the six different tumour types and fold changes between ependymoma and normal brain and ependymoma and other brain tumour types determined.
Similar(52)
Fourth, we computed the Z values for the normal vs. GBM comparison by applying the Z-test to the mean tag counts of normal and GBM technical replicates and then applying 1-Ncdf−1(P) to the resulting p-values from the Z-test.
The mean tag counts of the above mention bins were also calculated.
The averaged binned gene expression values were then graphed against mean tag counts for each bin.
The mean tag counts were compared between CINI/II tissue samples (libraries M1-6) and CIN III libraries (C1-6).
Therefore, to investigate this gene family, the mean tag counts were calculated for all 14 S100 genes located on 1q21.3 represented in SAGE genie in the ependymoma SAGE libraries.
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