Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(1)
Exact(2)
For each protein tested, we extracted all hits in Pol II transcribed RNAs (Table S1) and plotted the proportion mapping to snoRNAs, CUTs, SUTs, XUTs, and two mRNAs.
On average 74% of the total reads mapped to maize inbred B73 reference genome sequence (Additional file 1: Table S1), with most of the reads mapping to exons (~96%) and only a small proportion mapping to introns (~1.8%) and intergenic regions (~2%; Additional file 2: Figure S1).
Similar(58)
Open image in new window Fig. 5 Vertical proportion curve and lithotype proportion map showing vertical and areal distribution of rock types.
These lithotype proportion curves resulted into lithotype proportion maps (Fig. 5) which are then incorporated in generation of facies distribution model for the reservoir.
In addition to lithotype rules, the lithotype proportion maps resulted from lithotype curves provided a background guideline for cell-wise facies distribution.
Interestingly the Mutant Allele Proportion (MAP) was sometimes as low as 10%.
Additional file 1: Is a table listing plant-wise distribution of reads and their proportion mapped to the respective unigenes.
As expected, a large proportion of reads represented microRNAs, but remarkably, in the whole plasma samples prepared in this study, a similar proportion mapped to Y RNAs.
All mutations in samples for which there was sufficient DNA remaining were validated by High Resolution Melt (HRM) [ 27] analysis, iPLEX (using newly designed PCR and extension primers that differed from the OncoCarta primers), repeat OncoCarta analysis, and/or direct sequencing if the Mutant Allele Proportion (MAP) was >30% (Table 1 and Additional file 2, Table S2).
We randomly select a subset of reads from 6 (or 16) strains with predefined proportions, map these reads to the reference genome by BWA, call SNPs at the known polymorphism sites, and then use the PoolHap method to infer the proportions of strains.
Mutant Allele Proportions (MAPs) ranged from 9% to 80%.
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