Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(5)
Exact(4)
Values with different alphabets in a row significantly differ at (P ≤ 0.05).
Not so with different alphabets.
For same gene with different treatment groups, means in the different rows with different alphabets (a-d) were significantly different (p<0.05).
The parental lines were given with different alphabets as genotypes to determine segregation patterns, and 4,817 from the 5,044 polymorphic SLAFs were successfully encoded and grouped into eight segregation patterns (ab × cd, ef × eg, hk × hk, lm × ll, nn × np, aa × bb, ab × cc and cc × ab) following a genotype encoding rule.
Similar(56)
Values with different alphabet superscript differ significantly between durations within species.
Finally, to reduce the number of tuples, four different representations were proposed with different alphabet sizes.
Values in the same column with different alphabet are significantly different at α = 0.05 using Duncan multiple range test.
Each nitrogen sources (bars) with different alphabet letters are significantly different (p ≤ 0.05) Table 1 The order of specific growth rate, N P removal efficiency, protein and carbohydrate contents of the diatom with different nitrogen sources C.
Each species with different alphabet letters are significantly different (p ≤ 0.05) Open image in new window Fig. 2 Nitrogen removal properties of C. simplex and C. curvisetus under three different nitrogen sources.
Each nitrogen sources (bars) with different alphabet letters of species are significantly different (p ≤ 0.05) Open image in new window Fig. 5 Chlorophyll a concentration of C. simplex and C. curvisetus under three different nitrogen sources Open image in new window Fig. 6 Protein (a) and carbohydrate (b) contents of C. simplex and C. curvisetus under different nitrogen sources.
The data illustrate markedly different results with different alphabet definitions, both in terms of number of states and amino acid property modeled.
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