Suggestions(5)
Exact(3)
Mutation pairs with negative LD were excluded.
We calculated D' and r following the standard procedures [56] [58], using p1 = (NXαYβ+NXαY0)/N, q1 = (NXαYβ+NX0Yβ)/N, x11 = NXαYβ/N, where N = NXαYβ+NXαY0+NX0Yβ+NX0Y0.Finally, we used Wilcoxon rank sum test (wilcox.test function in the R package) to compare different types of mutation pairs with respect to their covariation score (e.g.gD').g
Eight mutation pairs with significant co-variation were identified in the RT region for CRF01_AE strains between the V179D/E TDR-associated mutation and seven overlapping polymorphisms.
Similar(56)
On ES we use the mutation operators covariance matrix adaptation (CMA), the 1/5th success rule as well as correlated, global, local, and no mutation paired with the crossover operators one- and n-point (n = 3), UNDX, and no crossover, each with p m = 0.8, p c = 0.2.
What remains unclear is the extent to which the quantitative genetic interaction datasets can distinguish the broad spectrum of interaction classes, as compared to existing information on mutation pairs associated with both positive and negative interactions, and whether the scoring of varying degrees of such epistatic effects could be improved by computational means.
Under these conditions we again observed sex determination locus transitions with the f- and m+ mutation pairs, but not with f+ and m- (Additional file 2).
As the motif in this region was specifically validated for the SOC1 protein, we analyzed correlated mutation pairs for SOC1 with interaction partners where the position in SOC1 overlapped with this 'hotspot' region.
Correlated mutation pairs were compared with protein structure data as follows.
In addition, correlated mutation pairs were compared with previously predicted interaction motifs [ 53].
To validate the observed correlated mutation pairs, we compared them with available structural data (a crystal structure is available for the human MADS domain), previously predicted interaction motifs and Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs).
The pattern is more complex with a→A/m→m+ mutation pairs.
More suggestions(2)
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