Gene sequences may not entirely explain an animal's characteristics.
However, anatomic imaging modalities such as CT, US, and conventional MRI sequences may not be sufficiently accurate in discriminating residual disease from fibrosis or scar tissue.
Furthermore, such compounds that bind to specific DNA sequences may not only control the expression of specific genes but also exert other mechanisms in the anti-cancer effect than those of classical DNA binding drugs.
The resulting narrow shelf may play a significant role in the preservation of later sequences, particularly in light of the continued uplift of the margin causing off-shelf sediment bypass where TST and HST sequences may not be preserved.
However, TEs inserted into intronic sequences may not disrupt the target gene but, by alternative splicing (AS) and exonization, alter the regular splicing pattern of a pre-mRNA and result in the translation of new protein isoforms (Feschotte, 2008).
That TF-binding of DNA sequences may not be constrained evolutionarily has been reported in yeasts and mammals [58], [61].
These and similar techniques are hindered in their acceptance since these specialized sequences may not be routinely obtained.
Other organisms may not use the same mechanism(s) because their SINE or LINE sequences may not have the same effects on protein synthesis.
This has the limitation that sequences in the same phylotype may be only marginally similar to each other or unknown sequences may not affiliate to a pre-existing taxonomy.
Hence, significant proportions of partial 16S rRNA gene sequences may not be confidently assigned to known species, for which only annotations like 'closest relative' and genus assignments will be possible.
The DHVE8 group appeared in RT-PCR clone libraries, but not in the V6-tags, although the V6-tag sequences may not have been phylogenetically informative enough to distinguish this group.
