Ai Feedback
Exact(4)
The difference in methylation percentage between tumors and cell lines suggests that NORE1A methylation appears later in tumor progression.
The mean difference in Alu methylation percentage between normal and matching tumour tissues was 1.03% in the validation series.
However, there were no significant differences in DNA methylation percentage between cancerous and histopathologically unchanged tissues from patients with CRC located in the distal colon (p = 0.7498) and rectum (p = 0.9810) (Table 2).
We also did not find significant differences in the DNA methylation percentage between these tissues in patients divided based on gender, age, histological grade (Table 2) and tumour stage (not shown).
Similar(56)
Variation in methylation percentages between the two experiments was 0.1 1.6% for LINE-1 and 0.1 1.2% for Alu.
Statistical analysis of the differences in methylation percentages between paired tumor and adjacent normal tissue samples at each CpG site was performed using nonparametric Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.
The paired t-test was employed to compare serum levels of folate, vitamin B12, and methylation percentages between matched cord blood and maternal blood.
To further explore the stability of the RA methylome signature over time, we considered the difference in methylation percentages between different passages and the replicates of P5. Figure 1B shows that variation between replicates of P5 is comparable to the variation between P5-P3 and P5-P7.
For checking the relationship between methylation percentage and binary variables, the t test for independent samples and the Mann-Whitney's U test were used.
This suggests that there is a direct association between the methylation percentage and the severity of BWS.
Unconditional logistic regression analysis was used to assess the relationship between HOXA4 promoter methylation percentage and the response of CML patients to IM by calculating the Odd Ratios (ORs) and 95% Confidence Interval (CI).
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