All three training methods produced significant improvements in reading speed, with average gains of 39% for lexical-decision, 54% for trigram letter-recognition, and 72% for RSVP training.
Consistent with this, the LM5/LM85 pair of primers, designed to recognize the catalytic domain of RasGrf1 (Additional file 2: Figure S1 panel C; see Methods) produced significant amplification of a specific 276 bp band in the WT samples but not in the RasGrf1 KO samples (Additional file 2: Figure S1, panel B).
We record how many times (out of 500) each of the methods produces significant P-value (P < 0.05), which measures the false-positive rate of each method.
A plot of per cycle error rate of these base-callers (Fig. 3) shows that all methods produce significant improvements over Bustard, especially in later sequencing cycles.
The wall thickness method produced significant smaller values than the mean drill size.
The leave-one-subject-out method produced significant performance-related activation in the left SPL, IPL, STG, inferior temporal gyrus, precuneus, insula, and putamen and the right IFG, middle cingulum, thalamus, and insula.
Along the same line, we also found that an increase in intracellular GSSG, achieved through delivery of GSSG into cells by a liposome delivery method, produced significant protein S-glutathionylation and similar microtubule depolymerization in NCI-H226 cells as observed in this investigation (unpublished data from this laboratory).
We blasted our BAC-located genes to the RNA-seq contigs from previous studies (see Methods), which produced significant matches for 54 out of 63 genes (Table 2 and Additional file 1: Table S3), showing that most of our BAC-located genes (~85 %) are expressed in flower buds.
In our case, the development work, especially in creating the new quality experience measuring methods, had already produced significant knowledge, capabilities, and competent personnel (about 15 to 20 researchers and research aides) so that the loss of a customer did not result in fatal problems.
In group 2, none of the intervention methods produced a significant benefit.
Studies in which genotyping was not blind to case control status (p = 0.01), studies not reporting the use of genotyping quality control (p = 0.01), and studies using RFLP-based methods (p = 0.01) produced significant associations.
