Exact(3)
This motif is essentially the entire MltC structure, as studied in the present report.
Thus, it appears that the distribution of the tCWCH2 sequence motif is essentially limited to the Uniconta (a collective term for the Opisthokonta and Amoebozoa supergroups) in current sequence databases.
This motif is essentially the same as that of other FOS family members, The differential local enrichment of this motif is highly significant (Fisher E-value <10-9, Figure 4A), but it is not locally enriched in the unbound promoters (E-value = 884).
Similar(57)
Creating a new motif from two high scoring motifs is essentially subtree crossover [ 5] applied to the binary choice tree with the addition of strong type constraints [ 28].
To assess the prediction specificity, we have checked a null hypothesis that the number of the known motifs in AGRIS and PLACE matched by our predicted motifs is essentially the same to the number of such motifs matched by predicted motifs based on groups of arbitrarily selected genes from the whole Arabidopsis genome using a Chi-square test (see Additional file 1: Table S10 for detail) [ 35].
Thus, the M1 and M11 motifs are essentially only found in or near ZNF genes.
Proteins with DM9 motifs are essentially found in arthropods and platyhelminths and only occasionally in other eukaryotes or prokaryotes (Table S1).
The folding structures of the two I-motifs are essentially the same (Figures 4A and 4B), being the chair-type I-motif consisting of five C+-C base pairs: C22-C13, C21-C12 C21-C12, C23-C14, and a more dynamic C18-C9 base pair.
As we have shown above, such motifs are essentially absent from real GRNs.
The motif structure is essentially same in both GeRNAMo and GPRM; specifically, an RNA motif is represented as a sequence of segments.
Motif 2 is essentially over-represented at positive strand in the area from -70 up to +10 bp (see Additional file 1, Supplemental Figure S8a); the occurrence frequency in the area from -40 to +10 is much larger at positive strand than at negative strand (see Additional file 1, Supplemental Figure S8b).
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