“extremely significant”

p values of p < 0.0001 and p < 0.001 were considered extremely significant (**** or ***), p < 0.01 very significant (**) and p < 0.05 significant (*). 3.

The significant difference in groups by Kruskal–Wallis test with p < 0.05 marked, the extremely significant difference in groups by Kruskal–Wallis test with p < 0.01 marked.

Significant differences were considered at p < 0.05, and extremely significant differences were considered at p < 0.01(* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01). 5.

Antondine injection (5 mL/kg) used as a positive control also showed extremely significant inhibition (73.22 ± 6.73%, p < 0.01) in the number of writhes as compared to the normal saline group ( Figure 3 B). 3.3.2.

The immune effect of 30 μg rND + white oil adjuvant was the best, with an extremely significant difference when compared to the PBS group ( P < 0.01; Fig. 5 ).

The analysis of the difference in ADG ( Figure 1C ) revealed that the Trt2 group exhibited an extremely significant increase in growth compared to the other three groups ( p < 0.01), with an average of 120.8 g/d.

Methylation levels at mC-4, mC-8, mC-10, mC-12, mC-13, mC-14, and mC-16 sites showed significant ( P <0.05) or extremely significant ( P <0.01) differences among different developmental stages.

2014 ), bacterial or fungal genera with extremely significant ( P < 0.01), strong correlations (Spearman’s correlation, r > 0.7) with other bacterial or fungal genera were selected (Xia et al. 2020 ).

Differences were considered statistically significant at p < 0.05 and extremely significant at p < 0.01.

Differences were considered significant when p < 0.05 and extremely significant when p < 0.01.

The correlation coefficient reached an extremely significant level ( p < 0.01).

The mean δ 2 H was significantly different in rice crayfish, pond crayfish, and wild crayfish ( p < 0.05, shown in Figure 2 ), with the rice crayfish and pond crayfish groups showing extremely significant differences ( p < 0.01, shown in Figure 2 ).

An extremely significant difference was expressed with “**” when p < 0.01.

In this study, an extremely significant difference was declared for p<0.01, and a significant difference for p<0.05, with p<0.10 being considered a tendency.

After treatment with different doses of Ext-epi, the BMC and BMD of the femur are significantly higher than model rats, among which the ZL-IL group has an extremely significant difference (p<0.01), the contents of OC, TNF-α, and TRAP in the serum of rats in the model group are higher than sham-operation group, and the contents of E2 decreased significantly (p<0.01).

All six bioclimatic factors had extremely significant effects ( p < 0.01) on the distribution of venerable trees in Sichuan, with the exception of bio18.

As shown in Table 2 , age, sex, and the interaction of age with sex all had extremely significant ( P < 0.01) effects on each trait.

Additionally, the limonin contents in the fruits during the four periods reached an extremely significant level of difference ( p < 0.01). 2.2.

Moreover, the germination rate of the two plant species has an extremely significant negative ( p < 0.01) correlation with cement content ( Tables 4 , 5 ).

The control group showed extremely significant difference when compared to the MIS-C groups (mainly Group B) regarding the respiratory manifestations, shock, heart rate, and respiratory rate ( p < 0.01).

Regarding the significance of interspecific associations: if < 3.841, the association is not significant ( P > 0.05); if 3.841 < < 6.635, the association is significant (0.01 < P < 0.05); if >6.635, the association is extremely significant ( P < 0.01).

The relative expression levels of the CDR2 gene in samples with different genotypes were as follows: MM > WM > WW, with extremely significant differences among groups ( P < 0.01) (Fig. 4 A).

In addition, we further used box plots to more intuitively display the nine DEPs that were extremely significant ( P < 0.01) between the two groups (Liaoning/non-Liaoning samples) ( Fig. 3 ).

However, as the salt concentration increased above 1%, the sensory score rapidly decreased, and the difference was extremely significant ( p < 0.01).

3.3 Effect of warmer temperature on BAT mass and UCP 1 immunofluorescence imaging Difference of BAT mass between the two regions was extremely significant ( t = 43.55, p < 0.01, Figure 3A ), and the reduction amount reached 65.9% in TC compared with PM.