Review



cumulative distribution function (cdf) or complete spatial random (csr) plots  (GraphPad Software Inc)


Bioz Verified Symbol GraphPad Software Inc is a verified supplier  
  • Logo
  • About
  • News
  • Press Release
  • Team
  • Advisors
  • Partners
  • Contact
  • Bioz Stars
  • Bioz vStars
  • 90

    Structured Review

    GraphPad Software Inc cumulative distribution function (cdf) or complete spatial random (csr) plots
    Cumulative Distribution Function (Cdf) Or Complete Spatial Random (Csr) Plots, supplied by GraphPad Software Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/cumulative distribution function (cdf) or complete spatial random (csr) plots/product/GraphPad Software Inc
    Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    cumulative distribution function (cdf) or complete spatial random (csr) plots - by Bioz Stars, 2026-06
    90/100 stars

    Images



    Similar Products

    90
    MathWorks Inc cumulative distribution function (cdf) plots
    Cumulative Distribution Function (Cdf) Plots, supplied by MathWorks Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/cumulative distribution function (cdf) plots/product/MathWorks Inc
    Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    cumulative distribution function (cdf) plots - by Bioz Stars, 2026-06
    90/100 stars
      Buy from Supplier

    90
    GraphPad Software Inc cumulative distribution function (cdf) or complete spatial random (csr) plots
    Cumulative Distribution Function (Cdf) Or Complete Spatial Random (Csr) Plots, supplied by GraphPad Software Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/cumulative distribution function (cdf) or complete spatial random (csr) plots/product/GraphPad Software Inc
    Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    cumulative distribution function (cdf) or complete spatial random (csr) plots - by Bioz Stars, 2026-06
    90/100 stars
      Buy from Supplier

    90
    Epigenomics ag cumulative 44 epigenomics distribution function plot
    Cumulative 44 Epigenomics Distribution Function Plot, supplied by Epigenomics ag, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/cumulative 44 epigenomics distribution function plot/product/Epigenomics ag
    Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    cumulative 44 epigenomics distribution function plot - by Bioz Stars, 2026-06
    90/100 stars
      Buy from Supplier

    90
    GraphPad Software Inc cumulative percentage distribution plot
    Cumulative Percentage Distribution Plot, supplied by GraphPad Software Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/cumulative percentage distribution plot/product/GraphPad Software Inc
    Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    cumulative percentage distribution plot - by Bioz Stars, 2026-06
    90/100 stars
      Buy from Supplier

    90
    GraphPad Software Inc cumulative distribution plot
    Cumulative Distribution Plot, supplied by GraphPad Software Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/cumulative distribution plot/product/GraphPad Software Inc
    Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    cumulative distribution plot - by Bioz Stars, 2026-06
    90/100 stars
      Buy from Supplier

    90
    GraphPad Software Inc boxplots, cumulative distribution plots, and statistical analyses
    Cohesin and CTCF ChIP-seq binding strength and proximity to genes. a Box plots of normalized ChIP-seq signal for the peak sets indicated on the x -axis. Peaks with sex differential binding for cohesin ( top graph ) and CTCF (b ottom graph ) are shown. Each pair of <t>boxplots</t> represents the male and female ChIP-seq signal for the same set of peaks, defined by their sex bias and peak type (CAC or CNC, for ΔCohesin peaks; and CAC or Lone CTCF, for ΔCTCF peaks), as indicated below the x -axis. Peak scores were calculated by average intra-peak ChIP signal, normalized by total sequence reads per million in peak (RIPM; see “ ”). Female-biased peaks were, on average, stronger than male-biased peaks by M–W test: p ≤ 0.001 for female vs male CAC(ΔCoh), CAC(ΔCTCF), and for CNC, but not for Lone CTCF peaks. b Distance from each indicated set of cohesin and CTCF peaks to the nearest enhancer DHS. Cumulative frequency curves indicate the fraction of each group on the y -axis, within the distance in kb to the nearest enhancer DHS indicated on the x -axis. Enhancer DHS were defined based on their high ratio of the enhancer histone mark H3K4me1 over the promoter mark H3K4me3 at DHS . Sex-biased CNC peaks are closer to enhancer DHS (median distance to eDHS of 0.22 kb for male-biased CNCs and 0.12 kb for female-biased CNCs; KS pval < 0.0001 for all comparisons) than the other CTCF and cohesin peak classes (M CAC(ΔCTCF): 14.98 kb; F CAC(ΔCTCF) 13.76 kb; M Lone ΔCTCF: 13.88 kb; F Lone ΔCTCF: 7.17 kb). Female-biased CNC peaks are significantly closer to enhancer DHS than are male-biased CNC peaks ( p = 0.0351; KS t -test). Male-biased CAC(ΔCohesin) peaks were closer to enhancers than female-biased CAC(ΔCohesin) peaks ( p = 0.002; KS t -test), however, the reverse was found for CAC(ΔCTCF) peaks ( p = 0.0052; KS t -test). Distance to nearest enhancer was not significantly different between male-biased and female-biased Lone CTCF peaks ( p = 0.1068; KS t -test). P values for comparisons between male-biased and female-biased peaks of the same class are shown for each plot (KS t -test). c Distance from each indicated set of cohesin and CTCF peaks to the nearest TSS. Cumulative frequency curves indicate the fraction of each group on the y -axis within the distance in kb to the nearest TSS indicated on the x -axis. TSS for protein coding (RefSeq) and liver lncRNA genes were considered . Female-biased cohesin and CTCF peaks are closer to TSS than male-biased CTCF and cohesin peaks of the same class (significance by KS t-test is indicated at top left of each plot). Distance to the TSS was not significantly different for male-biased versus female-biased CNC peaks ( p = 0.1458; KS t -test). d Proximity of sex-biased cohesin and CTCF binding sites to sex-biased genes. Peak designations were as follows: Proximal, peaks < 20 kb from a sex-biased gene TSS; Intra-TAD, peaks within the same intra-TAD loop as a sex-biased gene; or TAD, peaks in the same TAD as a sex-biased gene. Each of these groups is mutually exclusive. TAD loop and intra-TAD loop coordinates were from the indicated references. A set of 983 sex-biased biased protein-coding genes was used in this analysis (see Additional file : Table S1 of ). e Cumulative frequency curves show the fraction of each group ( y -axis) within the distance in kb to the nearest sex-biased DHS or H3K27ac genomic region ( x -axis), based on a merged list of published sex-biased DHS and sex-biased H3K27ac ChIP-seq peaks for male and female mouse liver. For this analysis, CAC peaks with sex-biased binding of CTCF and cohesin were combined and presented as a single group [CAC (Both)]. Male-biased and female-biased CNC peaks are significantly closer to sex-biased DHS/H3K27ac than the four other peak classes ( p < 0.001; KS t -test). Female-biased CNC peaks were significantly closer to sex-biased DHS/H3K27ac than male-biased CNC peaks ( p = 0.0094; KS)
    Boxplots, Cumulative Distribution Plots, And Statistical Analyses, supplied by GraphPad Software Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/boxplots, cumulative distribution plots, and statistical analyses/product/GraphPad Software Inc
    Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    boxplots, cumulative distribution plots, and statistical analyses - by Bioz Stars, 2026-06
    90/100 stars
      Buy from Supplier

    90
    RStudio ecdf (empirical cumulative distribution function) plots
    Cohesin and CTCF ChIP-seq binding strength and proximity to genes. a Box plots of normalized ChIP-seq signal for the peak sets indicated on the x -axis. Peaks with sex differential binding for cohesin ( top graph ) and CTCF (b ottom graph ) are shown. Each pair of <t>boxplots</t> represents the male and female ChIP-seq signal for the same set of peaks, defined by their sex bias and peak type (CAC or CNC, for ΔCohesin peaks; and CAC or Lone CTCF, for ΔCTCF peaks), as indicated below the x -axis. Peak scores were calculated by average intra-peak ChIP signal, normalized by total sequence reads per million in peak (RIPM; see “ ”). Female-biased peaks were, on average, stronger than male-biased peaks by M–W test: p ≤ 0.001 for female vs male CAC(ΔCoh), CAC(ΔCTCF), and for CNC, but not for Lone CTCF peaks. b Distance from each indicated set of cohesin and CTCF peaks to the nearest enhancer DHS. Cumulative frequency curves indicate the fraction of each group on the y -axis, within the distance in kb to the nearest enhancer DHS indicated on the x -axis. Enhancer DHS were defined based on their high ratio of the enhancer histone mark H3K4me1 over the promoter mark H3K4me3 at DHS . Sex-biased CNC peaks are closer to enhancer DHS (median distance to eDHS of 0.22 kb for male-biased CNCs and 0.12 kb for female-biased CNCs; KS pval < 0.0001 for all comparisons) than the other CTCF and cohesin peak classes (M CAC(ΔCTCF): 14.98 kb; F CAC(ΔCTCF) 13.76 kb; M Lone ΔCTCF: 13.88 kb; F Lone ΔCTCF: 7.17 kb). Female-biased CNC peaks are significantly closer to enhancer DHS than are male-biased CNC peaks ( p = 0.0351; KS t -test). Male-biased CAC(ΔCohesin) peaks were closer to enhancers than female-biased CAC(ΔCohesin) peaks ( p = 0.002; KS t -test), however, the reverse was found for CAC(ΔCTCF) peaks ( p = 0.0052; KS t -test). Distance to nearest enhancer was not significantly different between male-biased and female-biased Lone CTCF peaks ( p = 0.1068; KS t -test). P values for comparisons between male-biased and female-biased peaks of the same class are shown for each plot (KS t -test). c Distance from each indicated set of cohesin and CTCF peaks to the nearest TSS. Cumulative frequency curves indicate the fraction of each group on the y -axis within the distance in kb to the nearest TSS indicated on the x -axis. TSS for protein coding (RefSeq) and liver lncRNA genes were considered . Female-biased cohesin and CTCF peaks are closer to TSS than male-biased CTCF and cohesin peaks of the same class (significance by KS t-test is indicated at top left of each plot). Distance to the TSS was not significantly different for male-biased versus female-biased CNC peaks ( p = 0.1458; KS t -test). d Proximity of sex-biased cohesin and CTCF binding sites to sex-biased genes. Peak designations were as follows: Proximal, peaks < 20 kb from a sex-biased gene TSS; Intra-TAD, peaks within the same intra-TAD loop as a sex-biased gene; or TAD, peaks in the same TAD as a sex-biased gene. Each of these groups is mutually exclusive. TAD loop and intra-TAD loop coordinates were from the indicated references. A set of 983 sex-biased biased protein-coding genes was used in this analysis (see Additional file : Table S1 of ). e Cumulative frequency curves show the fraction of each group ( y -axis) within the distance in kb to the nearest sex-biased DHS or H3K27ac genomic region ( x -axis), based on a merged list of published sex-biased DHS and sex-biased H3K27ac ChIP-seq peaks for male and female mouse liver. For this analysis, CAC peaks with sex-biased binding of CTCF and cohesin were combined and presented as a single group [CAC (Both)]. Male-biased and female-biased CNC peaks are significantly closer to sex-biased DHS/H3K27ac than the four other peak classes ( p < 0.001; KS t -test). Female-biased CNC peaks were significantly closer to sex-biased DHS/H3K27ac than male-biased CNC peaks ( p = 0.0094; KS)
    Ecdf (Empirical Cumulative Distribution Function) Plots, supplied by RStudio, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/ecdf (empirical cumulative distribution function) plots/product/RStudio
    Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    ecdf (empirical cumulative distribution function) plots - by Bioz Stars, 2026-06
    90/100 stars
      Buy from Supplier

    90
    MathWorks Inc cumulative distribution function plots and modeling of the distributions of experimental data
    HLMVEC Ca 2+ pulse durations are sensitive to WSS magnitude and WSSGs in cells that pulse repeatedly. Plots represent the <t>cumulative</t> distribution functions (CDFs) for individual pulse durations (measured as FWHM) for P cells. The initial pulse (first pulse, FP) is shown in red, while all subsequent pulses (second, third, etc., SP) are shown in black. Dotted lines are fits to the Weibull distribution (see text). Pulse duration distributions are portrayed for Rings 1–6 (A–F), spatially uniform WSS (parallel plate chamber, G), and no flow (H). The scale (β) and shape (κ) parameters for fits to the Weibull distribution and the average pulse durations (FWHM; μ) are presented at the bottom of each graph. Experiments were performed in triplicate. Asterisks indicate statistically significant differences in CDFs as determined using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test ( n.s. , not significant; *, p < 0.05; **, p < 10 –4 ; ***, p < 10 –7 ).
    Cumulative Distribution Function Plots And Modeling Of The Distributions Of Experimental Data, supplied by MathWorks Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/cumulative distribution function plots and modeling of the distributions of experimental data/product/MathWorks Inc
    Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    cumulative distribution function plots and modeling of the distributions of experimental data - by Bioz Stars, 2026-06
    90/100 stars
      Buy from Supplier

    90
    Belden cumulative distribution plots
    HLMVEC Ca 2+ pulse durations are sensitive to WSS magnitude and WSSGs in cells that pulse repeatedly. Plots represent the <t>cumulative</t> distribution functions (CDFs) for individual pulse durations (measured as FWHM) for P cells. The initial pulse (first pulse, FP) is shown in red, while all subsequent pulses (second, third, etc., SP) are shown in black. Dotted lines are fits to the Weibull distribution (see text). Pulse duration distributions are portrayed for Rings 1–6 (A–F), spatially uniform WSS (parallel plate chamber, G), and no flow (H). The scale (β) and shape (κ) parameters for fits to the Weibull distribution and the average pulse durations (FWHM; μ) are presented at the bottom of each graph. Experiments were performed in triplicate. Asterisks indicate statistically significant differences in CDFs as determined using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test ( n.s. , not significant; *, p < 0.05; **, p < 10 –4 ; ***, p < 10 –7 ).
    Cumulative Distribution Plots, supplied by Belden, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/cumulative distribution plots/product/Belden
    Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    cumulative distribution plots - by Bioz Stars, 2026-06
    90/100 stars
      Buy from Supplier

    Image Search Results


    Cohesin and CTCF ChIP-seq binding strength and proximity to genes. a Box plots of normalized ChIP-seq signal for the peak sets indicated on the x -axis. Peaks with sex differential binding for cohesin ( top graph ) and CTCF (b ottom graph ) are shown. Each pair of boxplots represents the male and female ChIP-seq signal for the same set of peaks, defined by their sex bias and peak type (CAC or CNC, for ΔCohesin peaks; and CAC or Lone CTCF, for ΔCTCF peaks), as indicated below the x -axis. Peak scores were calculated by average intra-peak ChIP signal, normalized by total sequence reads per million in peak (RIPM; see “ ”). Female-biased peaks were, on average, stronger than male-biased peaks by M–W test: p ≤ 0.001 for female vs male CAC(ΔCoh), CAC(ΔCTCF), and for CNC, but not for Lone CTCF peaks. b Distance from each indicated set of cohesin and CTCF peaks to the nearest enhancer DHS. Cumulative frequency curves indicate the fraction of each group on the y -axis, within the distance in kb to the nearest enhancer DHS indicated on the x -axis. Enhancer DHS were defined based on their high ratio of the enhancer histone mark H3K4me1 over the promoter mark H3K4me3 at DHS . Sex-biased CNC peaks are closer to enhancer DHS (median distance to eDHS of 0.22 kb for male-biased CNCs and 0.12 kb for female-biased CNCs; KS pval < 0.0001 for all comparisons) than the other CTCF and cohesin peak classes (M CAC(ΔCTCF): 14.98 kb; F CAC(ΔCTCF) 13.76 kb; M Lone ΔCTCF: 13.88 kb; F Lone ΔCTCF: 7.17 kb). Female-biased CNC peaks are significantly closer to enhancer DHS than are male-biased CNC peaks ( p = 0.0351; KS t -test). Male-biased CAC(ΔCohesin) peaks were closer to enhancers than female-biased CAC(ΔCohesin) peaks ( p = 0.002; KS t -test), however, the reverse was found for CAC(ΔCTCF) peaks ( p = 0.0052; KS t -test). Distance to nearest enhancer was not significantly different between male-biased and female-biased Lone CTCF peaks ( p = 0.1068; KS t -test). P values for comparisons between male-biased and female-biased peaks of the same class are shown for each plot (KS t -test). c Distance from each indicated set of cohesin and CTCF peaks to the nearest TSS. Cumulative frequency curves indicate the fraction of each group on the y -axis within the distance in kb to the nearest TSS indicated on the x -axis. TSS for protein coding (RefSeq) and liver lncRNA genes were considered . Female-biased cohesin and CTCF peaks are closer to TSS than male-biased CTCF and cohesin peaks of the same class (significance by KS t-test is indicated at top left of each plot). Distance to the TSS was not significantly different for male-biased versus female-biased CNC peaks ( p = 0.1458; KS t -test). d Proximity of sex-biased cohesin and CTCF binding sites to sex-biased genes. Peak designations were as follows: Proximal, peaks < 20 kb from a sex-biased gene TSS; Intra-TAD, peaks within the same intra-TAD loop as a sex-biased gene; or TAD, peaks in the same TAD as a sex-biased gene. Each of these groups is mutually exclusive. TAD loop and intra-TAD loop coordinates were from the indicated references. A set of 983 sex-biased biased protein-coding genes was used in this analysis (see Additional file : Table S1 of ). e Cumulative frequency curves show the fraction of each group ( y -axis) within the distance in kb to the nearest sex-biased DHS or H3K27ac genomic region ( x -axis), based on a merged list of published sex-biased DHS and sex-biased H3K27ac ChIP-seq peaks for male and female mouse liver. For this analysis, CAC peaks with sex-biased binding of CTCF and cohesin were combined and presented as a single group [CAC (Both)]. Male-biased and female-biased CNC peaks are significantly closer to sex-biased DHS/H3K27ac than the four other peak classes ( p < 0.001; KS t -test). Female-biased CNC peaks were significantly closer to sex-biased DHS/H3K27ac than male-biased CNC peaks ( p = 0.0094; KS)

    Journal: Epigenetics & Chromatin

    Article Title: Impact of 3D genome organization, guided by cohesin and CTCF looping, on sex-biased chromatin interactions and gene expression in mouse liver

    doi: 10.1186/s13072-020-00350-y

    Figure Lengend Snippet: Cohesin and CTCF ChIP-seq binding strength and proximity to genes. a Box plots of normalized ChIP-seq signal for the peak sets indicated on the x -axis. Peaks with sex differential binding for cohesin ( top graph ) and CTCF (b ottom graph ) are shown. Each pair of boxplots represents the male and female ChIP-seq signal for the same set of peaks, defined by their sex bias and peak type (CAC or CNC, for ΔCohesin peaks; and CAC or Lone CTCF, for ΔCTCF peaks), as indicated below the x -axis. Peak scores were calculated by average intra-peak ChIP signal, normalized by total sequence reads per million in peak (RIPM; see “ ”). Female-biased peaks were, on average, stronger than male-biased peaks by M–W test: p ≤ 0.001 for female vs male CAC(ΔCoh), CAC(ΔCTCF), and for CNC, but not for Lone CTCF peaks. b Distance from each indicated set of cohesin and CTCF peaks to the nearest enhancer DHS. Cumulative frequency curves indicate the fraction of each group on the y -axis, within the distance in kb to the nearest enhancer DHS indicated on the x -axis. Enhancer DHS were defined based on their high ratio of the enhancer histone mark H3K4me1 over the promoter mark H3K4me3 at DHS . Sex-biased CNC peaks are closer to enhancer DHS (median distance to eDHS of 0.22 kb for male-biased CNCs and 0.12 kb for female-biased CNCs; KS pval < 0.0001 for all comparisons) than the other CTCF and cohesin peak classes (M CAC(ΔCTCF): 14.98 kb; F CAC(ΔCTCF) 13.76 kb; M Lone ΔCTCF: 13.88 kb; F Lone ΔCTCF: 7.17 kb). Female-biased CNC peaks are significantly closer to enhancer DHS than are male-biased CNC peaks ( p = 0.0351; KS t -test). Male-biased CAC(ΔCohesin) peaks were closer to enhancers than female-biased CAC(ΔCohesin) peaks ( p = 0.002; KS t -test), however, the reverse was found for CAC(ΔCTCF) peaks ( p = 0.0052; KS t -test). Distance to nearest enhancer was not significantly different between male-biased and female-biased Lone CTCF peaks ( p = 0.1068; KS t -test). P values for comparisons between male-biased and female-biased peaks of the same class are shown for each plot (KS t -test). c Distance from each indicated set of cohesin and CTCF peaks to the nearest TSS. Cumulative frequency curves indicate the fraction of each group on the y -axis within the distance in kb to the nearest TSS indicated on the x -axis. TSS for protein coding (RefSeq) and liver lncRNA genes were considered . Female-biased cohesin and CTCF peaks are closer to TSS than male-biased CTCF and cohesin peaks of the same class (significance by KS t-test is indicated at top left of each plot). Distance to the TSS was not significantly different for male-biased versus female-biased CNC peaks ( p = 0.1458; KS t -test). d Proximity of sex-biased cohesin and CTCF binding sites to sex-biased genes. Peak designations were as follows: Proximal, peaks < 20 kb from a sex-biased gene TSS; Intra-TAD, peaks within the same intra-TAD loop as a sex-biased gene; or TAD, peaks in the same TAD as a sex-biased gene. Each of these groups is mutually exclusive. TAD loop and intra-TAD loop coordinates were from the indicated references. A set of 983 sex-biased biased protein-coding genes was used in this analysis (see Additional file : Table S1 of ). e Cumulative frequency curves show the fraction of each group ( y -axis) within the distance in kb to the nearest sex-biased DHS or H3K27ac genomic region ( x -axis), based on a merged list of published sex-biased DHS and sex-biased H3K27ac ChIP-seq peaks for male and female mouse liver. For this analysis, CAC peaks with sex-biased binding of CTCF and cohesin were combined and presented as a single group [CAC (Both)]. Male-biased and female-biased CNC peaks are significantly closer to sex-biased DHS/H3K27ac than the four other peak classes ( p < 0.001; KS t -test). Female-biased CNC peaks were significantly closer to sex-biased DHS/H3K27ac than male-biased CNC peaks ( p = 0.0094; KS)

    Article Snippet: Boxplots, cumulative distribution plots, and statistical analyses were implemented using GraphPad Prism 7.

    Techniques: ChIP-sequencing, Binding Assay, Sequencing

    HLMVEC Ca 2+ pulse durations are sensitive to WSS magnitude and WSSGs in cells that pulse repeatedly. Plots represent the cumulative distribution functions (CDFs) for individual pulse durations (measured as FWHM) for P cells. The initial pulse (first pulse, FP) is shown in red, while all subsequent pulses (second, third, etc., SP) are shown in black. Dotted lines are fits to the Weibull distribution (see text). Pulse duration distributions are portrayed for Rings 1–6 (A–F), spatially uniform WSS (parallel plate chamber, G), and no flow (H). The scale (β) and shape (κ) parameters for fits to the Weibull distribution and the average pulse durations (FWHM; μ) are presented at the bottom of each graph. Experiments were performed in triplicate. Asterisks indicate statistically significant differences in CDFs as determined using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test ( n.s. , not significant; *, p < 0.05; **, p < 10 –4 ; ***, p < 10 –7 ).

    Journal: Molecular Biology of the Cell

    Article Title: Lymphatic endothelial cell calcium pulses are sensitive to spatial gradients in wall shear stress

    doi: 10.1091/mbc.E18-10-0618

    Figure Lengend Snippet: HLMVEC Ca 2+ pulse durations are sensitive to WSS magnitude and WSSGs in cells that pulse repeatedly. Plots represent the cumulative distribution functions (CDFs) for individual pulse durations (measured as FWHM) for P cells. The initial pulse (first pulse, FP) is shown in red, while all subsequent pulses (second, third, etc., SP) are shown in black. Dotted lines are fits to the Weibull distribution (see text). Pulse duration distributions are portrayed for Rings 1–6 (A–F), spatially uniform WSS (parallel plate chamber, G), and no flow (H). The scale (β) and shape (κ) parameters for fits to the Weibull distribution and the average pulse durations (FWHM; μ) are presented at the bottom of each graph. Experiments were performed in triplicate. Asterisks indicate statistically significant differences in CDFs as determined using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test ( n.s. , not significant; *, p < 0.05; **, p < 10 –4 ; ***, p < 10 –7 ).

    Article Snippet: Cumulative distribution function plots and modeling of the distributions of experimental data were performed using MATLAB.

    Techniques: