This indicates that the presence of aerobic protists in our samples cannot explain the large difference between their richness and that in the temperate samples.
Hence, enlarged taxon sampling cannot explain our strong phylogenetic results within the afrotherian clade.
Our results suggest that the 13 POPs measured by GC-MS in the samples cannot explain alone the estrogenicity of the extracts.
However, our results suggest that the 13 POPs measured by GC-MS in the samples cannot explain alone the estrogenicity of the extracts and that other EDCs contaminate the porpoises.
While this appears to hold true within the Lecanoromycetes with the current sampling, this hypothesis cannot explain the apparent loss of the genes in Endocarpon pallidulum (Chaetothyriomycetidae) or Arthonia rubrocincta (Arthoniomycetes).
For example, the very slight microstructural differences between A3 and A6 samples (Figs. 9, 10) cannot explain a difference of half order of magnitude in the ASR (Fig. 8a).
Covariates including concealment (P = 0.88), blinding (P = 0.82), intention to treat (P = 0.72), sequence generating (P = 0.48) and sample size calculation (P = 0.57) cannot explain the heterogeneity between meta-analyses.
Therefore, the presence of CBF3 in both G1 and M phage minichromosome samples suggests that CBF3 or kinetochore cannot explain the rod shaped structures found only in the M phase minichromosomes.
The isotopic compositions of He and Ne in this sample cannot be explained by mixing of a galactic cosmic ray (GCR -produced component and SW GCR -produced
We cannot explain why 1 WCBV-neutralizing sample additionally neutralized DUVV.
