1 AP-PCR analysis was consistent with
intrafamilial A. actinomycetemcomitans transmission.
2 g every week, a repeated and harmful form of
intrafamilial aggression.
3 However, there is high
intrafamilial and interfamilial phenotypic variability.
4 There was wide
intrafamilial and interfamilial variability in clinical
5 highly penetrant condition with substantial
intrafamilial and interfamilial variability.
6 Intrafamilial and interfamilial variation in retinal sev
7 Phenotypes were comparable, but some
intrafamilial and interfamilial variations were noted.
8 a in the nasopharynx serve as reservoirs for
intrafamilial and nosocomial transmission.
9 ade to the remaining trichomycterids and the
intrafamilial clade TSVSG (Tridentinae-Stegophilinae-Van
10 tion in a large family characterized by high
intrafamilial clinical phenotype variability.
11 There was no evidence of
intrafamilial clustering of particular phenotypes.
12 gh horizontal transmission in childhood from
intrafamilial contacts and that transmission continues i
13 ared 270 duplication carriers with their 102
intrafamilial control individuals, 390 reciprocal deleti
14 suggest that duplication carriers outperform
intrafamilial control subjects with the same IQ level.
15 on carriers, 44 duplication carriers, and 71
intrafamilial control subjects.
16 Intrafamilial correlation analysis showed that other fac
17 The heritability and
intrafamilial correlation coefficients were assessed for
18 The high
intrafamilial correlation of HPV multiplicity is already
19 There was no
intrafamilial correlation regarding CFA levels.
20 models accounting for site heterogeneity and
intrafamilial correlation were used to compare screen-ba
21 TrioMix can accurately deconvolute any
intrafamilial DNA contamination, including parent-offspr
22 The
intrafamilial dynamics of endemic infection with human h
23 From a model of
intrafamilial evolution, a prediction could be made that
24 Parenting quality and behaviour are the
intrafamilial factors most strongly associated with bull
25 ver, these risks are small and likely due to
intrafamilial factors or disease activity.
26 Conclusion: When
intrafamilial factors were taken into consideration, H1N
27 To consider
intrafamilial factors, we compared pregnancies within th
28 nsidered remote generations or distinguished
intrafamilial from extrafamilial horizontal and oblique
29 (FSHD) is characterized by marked inter- and
intrafamilial heterogeneity in its clinical expression.
30 , which engage in both homo- and heterotypic
intrafamilial interactions to exert diverse functional e
31 rated the validity and applicability of this
intrafamilial model for the prediction of intraspecies S
32 However, application of a PLATO-derived
intrafamilial model with the intraspecies-derived model
33 e the odds of being HHV-8 seropositive among
intrafamilial pairs.
34 d the relative risk of colonization in these
intrafamilial pairs.
35 ally complex disease characterized by marked
intrafamilial phenotype diversity.
36 with phenotypes in Finnish patients with NS,
intrafamilial phenotype variations, and the type of immu
37 However, the discordant
intrafamilial phenotypes of 16p11.2 deletion carriers su
38 Nevertheless, we observed highly variable
intrafamilial phenotypes, suggesting the strong influenc
39 H2 mutation associated with a high degree of
intrafamilial phenotypic heterogeneity: Y141C.
40 The extensive interfamilial and
intrafamilial phenotypic variability observed suggests t
41 this retrospective cohort study, we describe
intrafamilial phenotypic variability of retinal hemangio
42 Intrafamilial phenotypic variability of RH exists betwee
43 Marked inter- and
intrafamilial phenotypic variability of the disease was
44 Intrafamilial phenotypic variability was also observed i
45 ction system defects, suggest mechanisms for
intrafamilial phenotypic variability, and account for re
46 It is characterized by considerable
intrafamilial phenotypic variation and focal cyst format
47 Intrafamilial phenotypic variation was identified in 3 f
48 spinal muscular atrophy exhibiting dramatic
intrafamilial phenotypic variation.
49 Intrafamilial recombinations placed MEFV in the approxim
50 Higher levels of
intrafamilial sociopolitical conflict was associated wit
51 used whole-genome sequencing to investigate
intrafamilial spread among 4 siblings of infection due t
52 oposed and relationships within at least 126
intrafamilial taxa also have been inferred.
53 The distribution, clonality, and
intrafamilial transmission of highly leukotoxic A. actin
54 However, significant inter- and
intrafamilial variability and apparent incomplete penetr
55 Inter- and
intrafamilial variability exists and we observed one pat
56 plaining an important part of the inter- and
intrafamilial variability in ADPKD.
57 he clinical spectrum of the disorder and the
intrafamilial variability in disease presentation.
58 Both interfamilial and
intrafamilial variability in expression is well recogniz
59 The inter- and
intrafamilial variability in expression of FGFR2 mutatio
60 Understanding phenotypic diversity and
intrafamilial variability in PARD is crucial for develop
61 ion are at the genic and allelic levels, but
intrafamilial variability indicates that genetic backgro
62 There is significant
intrafamilial variability likely due to the genetic back
63 Such
intrafamilial variability may arise from environmental f
64 nd a genetic mechanism that may underlie the
intrafamilial variability of ADPKD progression.
65 Considerable
intrafamilial variability was observed, reflecting the i
66 There is extensive interfamilial as well as
intrafamilial variability with respect to the manifestat
67 characterized by BEM with little inter- and
intrafamilial variability, and retinal dystrophy with va
68 genetic disorder with substantial inter- and
intrafamilial variability, that also exhibits remarkable
69 t is associated with large interfamilial and
intrafamilial variability, which can be explained to a l
70 dly shortened metacarpophalangeal bones with
intrafamilial variability.
71 ure and two were associated with significant
intrafamilial variable expressivity, including isolated
72 Interfamilial and
intrafamilial variation in disease severity was observed
73 However, the large
intrafamilial variation in the progression rate of ADPKD
74 Intrafamilial variations of the malformations strongly s
75 busers had more frequently witnessed serious
intrafamilial violence (3.1, 1.0-10.0).