Suggestions(1)
Exact(3)
Regression results showed consistent and robust association between sanitation success and education for the national, rural and socio-political samples (p values 0.018 0.038).
Statistical significance was evaluated by Student's t-test for paired samples; p values <.05 (two-sided) were considered statistically significant.
The bacteria were suppressed by 3.5 6 log10 compared to the untreated samples (P values = 0.0078 0.018) at all initial cell concentrations (Table 2), and treatment by 5 μM RB at an initial concentration of 10 CFU mL−1 led to the most profound eradication of S. aureus.
Similar(57)
GM- CSF expression was very low and did not differ between breast tumor samples and normal tissue samples (p value = 0.49, Online Resource 23).
Also expression levels of PTRF were significantly higher in normal tissue compared to tumor tissue samples (p value ≤0.0001, Online Resource 22).
The four most commonly used cell lines (i.e., HepG2, HuH 7, Hep3B and PLC/PRF/5) [ 19] have significantly high correlations with the tumor samples (P value < 0.05).
A one-way ANOVA on the resistance patterns of these isolates yielded highly significant variation among the iceberg lettuce samples (P value < 0.001).
And there were no significant differences of RIN scores between disease (SZ or BD) and control samples (P value =0.81 and 0.67, respectively, two-tailed Student t test).
The gadX expression level was significantly higher in the MC1061 ϕ24B) samples than in the MC1061 samples (P value of <0.05), but this gene exhibited a very similar relative expression profile in all other constructs and strains (Fig. 1B).
Cuffdiff, a package of Cufflinks, was used to identify differentially expressed genes among samples (p value ≤0.05), and the CummeRbund R package [ 74] was used to visualize differentially expressed genes.
(TIFF 123 kb) Additional file 4: miRNAs without status and differentiation interaction that show differential expression between OA and Control samples (p value <0.05 without multiple test correction applied).
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