Response to “Letter to Fowler et al. 2008”

Response to letter of Vahle et al.

several important points that deserve comment. The primary objective of our paper was to report the results of a standard two-year rat carcinogenicity study conducted with recombinant full-length human PTH (1-84) to comply with international regulatory guidelines. Dr. Vahle et al. are correct that our study did not directly compare the carcinogenic potential of PTH (1-84) and PTH (1-34), that i...

Letter to the Editor response: Nygaard et al.

The article by Nygaard and others (2016) proposes that applying batch correction approaches to microarray data from studies with unbalanced designs may inadvertently exaggerate the differences observed. In seeking to illustrate their point, Nygaard and others (2016) utilized a dataset (GSE61901) from a study we published (Towfic and others, 2014) and showed that one analysis pipeline utilizing ...

Public Participation: Methods Matter; A Response to Boaz et al.

Response to the letter to editor

No Abstract is available

Letter to the Editor Wolf Subspecies: Reply to Weckworth et al. and Fredrickson et al

Colleagues disagree with statements in our discussion (Cronin et al. 2015) regarding subspecies taxonomy of wolves (Canis lupus) in southeast Alaska (Weckworth et al. 2015) and the southwest United States (Fredrickson et al. 2015). Following the presentation of results of single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) variation in several populations of wolves in North America, we discussed other genetic...