Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(1)
Exact(4)
Based on our prediction, a total of 38 novel putative genes encode mitochondrial proteins.
By de novo prediction, a total of 166,164 (23,288 piRNAs with read numbers > 5) candidate piRNAs were predicated.
Based on miRDeep prediction a total of 12 novel miRNAs showed similarity in the seed region with the known miRNAs indicating that these miRNAs are likely to belong to the same family and thus may share common biology (Additional files 7 and 8).
Based on genome mapping and the miRbase results and hairpin prediction, a total of 55conserved miRNAs derived from B. napus were identified, including 41 miRNAs and miRNAs* (22 families) were firstly identified together with 14 already in miRbase (Additional file 1: Figure S1, Additional file 2: Table S2).
Similar(56)
Based on MAMI predictions, a total of 242 different miRNAs suppress p53 regulators or targets.
This combined approach (Additional file 2: Figure S1) resulted in the prediction of a total of 15,469 protein encoding genes.
The prediction yielded a total of 26,471 putative genes for the genome of P. pastoris.
Further filtering through identification of likely coding sequence based on ORF prediction identified a total of 18,919 transcripts across 10,775 unigenes, with an N50 transcript size of 3,546 bp and transcript sum of 53.00 Mb.
The prediction revealed a total of 641 known miRNAs and 3734 target genes: 158, 160, 159, and 164 known miRNAs and 895, 972, 895, and 972 target genes in AA, BB, AB, and AABB, respectively (Additional file 6).
With an aim to address this important knowledge gap, we used SIPHT/sRNAPredict2 to identify candidate novel sRNAs within the intergenic regions of all four rickettsial groups, leading to the prediction of a total of 1,785 novel sRNAs within 16 different strains representing 13 rickettsial species.
We received predictions from a total of 27 teams for the CHEMDNER challenge: 26 for the CEM task and 23 for the CDI task.
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