Only one type of mutation was observed in most of these samples, which explained why they were not detected by HMA (false negatives).
The average sizes of nuclei of patient samples were 60% larger than that of rat samples, which explains the difference in the run length values between two models.
These were around 13% of all pregnancies, and so represent a relatively large proportion of the sample, which explains the relatively large bias.
The degradation products were particularly distinct in the necrotic sample, which explains the difference in the read size distribution between the two libraries.
Table 3 shows the cross-sectional model for the QoL follow-up sample, which explained 55% of the variance in self-rated active ageing (R = 0.550).
Because there are very many potential types of deletions and much fewer clonal expansions per sample, only a small proportion of possible types of deletions are found in each sample, which explains why two samples typically have almost no deletions in common.
Infiltration and high loading rate, however, affect nanoindentation measures by increasing the stiffness of the sample [37,38], which explains our relatively high, but not unreasonable values for mouse bone [36,39].
Transmission microscopy study indicated formation of voids enclosed by undispersed GPs in the samples which could explain the decline of the properties.
The borehole water samples were less acidic compared to the dam water samples, which might explain why the free cyanide concentrations were high for high pH water samples.
The remaining 20% of known TSSs in the DBTSS may be derived from many different tissues and samples, which may explain why we did not detect them within the particular cell type used in this study.
