Skip to main content
. 2009 Dec 16;2:256. doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-2-256

Table 5.

Comparison of an average network of the two groups with oscillatory pattern (group III vs. group IV).

Network Differences
θ m1 m2 dm t

hb cad -0.0479759 -0.0239867 0.0239891 0.000701299
Tll cad -0.0197665 -0.0261618 -0.00639534 0.00334701
hb hb 0.0202833 0.0133955 -0.00688781 1.11532e - 005
gt hb 0.0131477 -0.00553095 -0.0186786 4.33042e - 011
kni hb -0.148545 -0.0728052 0.0757399 7.19654e - 005
hb gt -0.00730634 0.00505889 0.0123652 3.60571e - 006
Kr gt -0.103984 -0.0585162 0.0454676 0.000300942
Tll gt -0.0107778 -0.0464788 -0.035701 6.88338e - 014
gt Tll -0.036005 -0.00193247 0.0340725 0.000156841
bcd cad -0.014402 -0.0389897 -0.0245877 7.47514e - 005
bcd Kr 0.0576209 0.0287058 -0.0289151 0.000306426
bcd gt 0.0957429 0.0223168 -0.0734261 6.08573e - 005
bcd kni -0.000129675 0.0630306 0.0631603 0.000139936

The table summarizes the list of parameters that are significantly different. All the parameters in the two groups have the predict the same regulatory interactions (but, with some extent, Inline graphic [see Tab. S3 in Additional file S11, where networks diagrams are shown.]