Table 3 |
||
|
Rank order of different conditions |
||
|
Rank |
Condition (growth rate) |
|
|
|
||
|
Table III of (Levy et al., 2005) [19] (Table 1 of this paper) |
Table II of (Levy et al., 2005) [19] (Table 2 of this paper) |
|
|
|
||
|
1 |
4R-1:20 (4.7) |
4R-1:20 (4.9) |
|
2 |
4R-1:38 (4.0) |
4R-1:38 (4.4) |
|
3 |
3R-1:20 (4.0) |
3R-1:20 (3.9) |
|
4 |
4R-1:45 (3.5) |
4R-1:45 (3.9) |
|
5 |
3R-1:38 (3.6) |
4R-1:55 (3.3) |
|
6 |
4R-1:55 (2.6) |
3R-1:38 (2.7) |
|
7 |
No-Tau (2.3) |
No-Tau (2.8) |
|
8 |
3R-1:45 (2.0) |
3R-1:45 (2.2) |
|
9 |
3R-1:55 (2.0) |
3R-1:55 (2.3) |
|
|
||
|
The ranks of the conditions remain almost the same across the two samples (considering a variation of 0.1 μm/min) except that the 4R-1:55 and the 3R-1:38 conditions are reversed. |
||
|
Bhattacharya et al. BMC Bioinformatics 2008 9:339 doi:10.1186/1471-2105-9-339 |
||