This paper is about the "Global epistasis makes adaptation predictable despite sequence-level stochasticity" and the link for this study is given below:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4314286/
can you please help me these questions because i'm having a hard time understanding the paper:
Answer the following questions:
1) What is the hypothesis of the paper?
2) Is this a correlative or causative study?
3) How do the authors support their hypothesis?
4) Do you believe the authorâs data presented in the paper (and any supplements) support their hypothesis. If not, why not?
5) Are there other experiments or experimental modification that should have been performed by the researchers?
6) Does the discussion carefully lay out an argument that supports the hypothesis? If not, what do you believe was missing?
7) Does the statistical analysis strengthen or weaken the conclusions of the paper.
8) What are the conclusions of the paper? Do you agree with the conclusions?
9) Does the author overstate their findings or perhaps not enough?
This paper is about the "Global epistasis makes adaptation predictable despite sequence-level stochasticity" and the link for this study is given below:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4314286/
can you please help me these questions because i'm having a hard time understanding the paper:
Answer the following questions:
1) What is the hypothesis of the paper?
2) Is this a correlative or causative study?
3) How do the authors support their hypothesis?
4) Do you believe the authorâs data presented in the paper (and any supplements) support their hypothesis. If not, why not?
5) Are there other experiments or experimental modification that should have been performed by the researchers?
6) Does the discussion carefully lay out an argument that supports the hypothesis? If not, what do you believe was missing?
7) Does the statistical analysis strengthen or weaken the conclusions of the paper.
8) What are the conclusions of the paper? Do you agree with the conclusions?
9) Does the author overstate their findings or perhaps not enough?
