Empirical evaluation of data transformations and ranking statistics fo
http://www.100md.com
《核酸研究医学期刊》
Nucleic Acids Res. (2004) 32, 5471–5479.
The authors apologize that an incorrect citation was given for reference 8. The correct reference is:
Cui,X. and Churchill,G.A. (2003) Statistical tests for differential expression in cDNA microarray experiments. Genome Biol., 4, 210. http://genomebiology.com/2003/4/4/210
doi:10.1093/nar/gkh930
Both CAG repeats and inverted DNA repeats stimulate spontaneous unequal sister-chromatid exchange in Saccharomyces cerevisiae
Dilip K. Nag, Manisha Suri and Erin K. Stenson
Nucleic Acids Res. (2004) 32, 5677–5684.
The authors apologize that an incorrect triplet repeat was given in the second paragraph of the Introduction to their article. The correct triplet repeat is given in the sentence below.
Among all of the possible triplet repeats, only three (CAG.CTG, CGG.CCG and GAA.TTC; hereafter, CAG, CGG and GAA, respectively) are known to be associated with repeat disorders and fragile sites.
doi:10.1093/nar/gkh938
Statistical analysis of over-represented words in human promoter sequences
Leonardo Mari?o-Ramírez, John L. Spuge, Gavin C. Kanga and David Landsman
Nucleic Acids Res. (2004) 32, 949–958.
A bug was discovered in the program that produced the z-score analysis. The bug did not qualitatively change the scientific conclusions of the paper. Corrected quantitative data have been posted on the URL http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/CBBresearch/Spouge/Articles/index.html, under the heading
3. Marino-Ramirez, D. Landsman, and J. L. Spouge
z-Score Statistic and Human Promoters
(2003) Archived zip file
and on the URL http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/CBBresearch/Landsman/HRSE/.(Li-Xuan Qin, Kathleen F. Kerr and Contri)
The authors apologize that an incorrect citation was given for reference 8. The correct reference is:
Cui,X. and Churchill,G.A. (2003) Statistical tests for differential expression in cDNA microarray experiments. Genome Biol., 4, 210. http://genomebiology.com/2003/4/4/210
doi:10.1093/nar/gkh930
Both CAG repeats and inverted DNA repeats stimulate spontaneous unequal sister-chromatid exchange in Saccharomyces cerevisiae
Dilip K. Nag, Manisha Suri and Erin K. Stenson
Nucleic Acids Res. (2004) 32, 5677–5684.
The authors apologize that an incorrect triplet repeat was given in the second paragraph of the Introduction to their article. The correct triplet repeat is given in the sentence below.
Among all of the possible triplet repeats, only three (CAG.CTG, CGG.CCG and GAA.TTC; hereafter, CAG, CGG and GAA, respectively) are known to be associated with repeat disorders and fragile sites.
doi:10.1093/nar/gkh938
Statistical analysis of over-represented words in human promoter sequences
Leonardo Mari?o-Ramírez, John L. Spuge, Gavin C. Kanga and David Landsman
Nucleic Acids Res. (2004) 32, 949–958.
A bug was discovered in the program that produced the z-score analysis. The bug did not qualitatively change the scientific conclusions of the paper. Corrected quantitative data have been posted on the URL http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/CBBresearch/Spouge/Articles/index.html, under the heading
3. Marino-Ramirez, D. Landsman, and J. L. Spouge
z-Score Statistic and Human Promoters
(2003) Archived zip file
and on the URL http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/CBBresearch/Landsman/HRSE/.(Li-Xuan Qin, Kathleen F. Kerr and Contri)