Your English writing platform
Free sign upSuggestions(1)
Exact(1)
The authors estimate a probability of the order of 10−23 of finding this functional enzyme using the same fold in sequence space [13].
Similar(59)
For verification purposes, we first do training and testing using the same folds, the results for each of the five folds indicated above are very good, a 99%-10099%-100%cy rate (not shown).
Add the remainder of the flour in 3rds, using the same folding method.
Next, using the same fold-change and p value thresholds, we generated another list of regulated genes by comparing the transcription profile of 2-cellNSN vs. 2-cellctrl embryos.
Now, taking the better defined E-value of 0.1, it still remains unclear (i) if the cutoff of 0.1 is appropriate for the fold-critical E-value cutoff for trusted hits inclusion and (ii) whether it is justifiable to use the same fold-critical E-value cutoff for both HMMER2 and HMMER3, given that their algorithmic and parameterization differences.
Use the same folding and cutting technique to create as many pages as you need to bring the tale to an end.
Using the same protein fold containing randomized residues at the same positions, αRep proteins were able to form very different complexes with the same target protein.
We identified 299 transcripts [211 up-regulated (Figure 1B) and 88 down-regulated (Figure 1C)] that demonstrated at least a two-fold change in expression at 6 h p.i. Furthermore, using the same two-fold threshold, 258 (132 up-regulated and 126 down-regulated) and 295 (163 up-regulated and 132 down-regulated) transcripts were differentially regulated at 12 and 24 h p.i. (Figure 1B C).
The SVM-based method using the same six-fold cross-validation procedure and PSSM features has NP = 80.15% for the training dataset PDNA-62 and NP = 69.54% for the test dataset PDC-59, which are much better than the existing neural network-based method by increasing the NP values for training and test accuracies up to 13.45% and 16.53%, respectively.
Each of these models contains the same predictor variables (PSA, clinical stage and biopsy GS) and have all been developed using the same 5-fold cross validation approach.
However, using the same four-fold cutoff, LoVo vs L2 and LoVo vs L3 differed in the expression of 63 and 47 genes, respectively.
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