That reverses the burden of proof from the usual scenario, where a developer seeking a zoning variance comes to the planning board hat in hand and is usually rejected.
The additional variance comes chiefly from rescaling noise α ^ MathType@MTEF@5@5@+=feaafiart1ev1aaatCvAUfKttLearuWrP9MDH5MBPbIqV92AaeXatLxBI9gBaebbnrfifHhDYfgasaacPC6xNi=xH8viVGI8Gi=hEeeu0xXdbba9frFj0xb9qqpG0dXdb9aspeI8k8fiI+fsY=rqGqVepae9pg0db9vqaiVgFr0xfr=xfr=xc9adbaqaaeGacaGaaiaabeqaaeqabiWaaaGcbaacciGaf8xSdeMathType@MTEF@5@5@+=feaafiart1ev1aaatCvAUfKttLearuWrP9MDH5MBPbIqV92AaeXatLxBI9gBaebbnrfifHhDYfgasaacPC6xNi=xH8viVGI8Gi=hEeeu0xXdbba9frFj0xb9qqpG0dXdb9aspeI8k8fiI+fs
The loss of variance came primarily from inbreeding.
Some of this between-study variance comes from random sampling error, while some may come from heterogeneity.
As branches have been normalized with respect to their lengths by the correspondence analysis, this variance comes from differences in patterns of substitutions, not branch lengths.
The greatest contribution to this variance came from the joint space narrowing readings (see Figure 8), as opposed to the erosion scores (see Figure 9).
Considering the predictions across all 52 maps (13 algorithms *4 AOGCMs, atmosphere ocean general circulation model) through the three time periods, the greatest variance came from AOGCMs (proportional Sum of Square = 0.35), followed by time component (SS = 0.25).
Importantly, principal variance component analysis confirmed that the largest determinant of variance came from tissue source (LPLs vs blood vs IELs) with cell type (CD4+ vs CD8+) showing less contribution, and interindividual variation accounting for <5% of total variance (figure 1A), an observation borne out by unsupervised hierarchical clustering analysis (figure 1B).
AMOVA showed that most of the variance came from differences among groups, and the seven groups were best recognized because the grouping maximized the values of among-group variance (90.92%), while 8.77% of the variance from differences among individuals (Additional file 2).
Although variability between biological replicates of two different libraries (L6 and L8) was less than 0.95, it is likely that the variance came from library construction and not the sequencing process, since the correlations between biological replicates of the libraries constructed at one lab (Florida) were excellent (> 0.95, Additional File 2).
