Find research datasets worth reusing
Search datasets from major research repositories and use ShareScore to quickly assess how well each record supports discovery, access, and reuse.
2,315
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
2,315 results for “Comparative analysis”
Comparative analysis of predictors of failure for high-flow nasal cannula in bronchiolitis
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
A comparative phylogenomic analysis of birds reveals heterogeneous differentiation processes among Neotropical Savannas
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Enabling effective urban green space stewardship through planning: A qualitative comparative analysis in Southwest England
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Improving the recovery for dissolved eDNA State: A comparative analysis of isopropanol precipitation, magnetic bead extraction, and centrifugal dialysis
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Fig. 7 in Comparative analysis of worker head anatomy of Formica and Brachyponera (Hymenoptera: Formicidae)
Fig. 7. SEM micrographs of the labium of Formica rufa (A – E) and Brachyponera luteipes (F – H). A,C,D: Dorsal view. B,E,H: Lateral view. F,G: Dorsolateral view. E,H: Close view of the paraglossa. — Abbreviations: bpb – basiparaglossal brush; dhy – distal hypopharynx; glam – anterior glossal margin; glds – dorsal glossal sclerite; glo – glossa; ibp – infrabuccal pouch; pgl – paraglossa; plb – palpus labialis; pmd – premental ditch; spc – stipito-premental conjunctivum; svo – salivary opening.
Fig. 14 in Comparative analysis of worker head anatomy of Formica and Brachyponera (Hymenoptera: Formicidae)
Fig. 14. Histological sections of heads of Brachyponera luteipes (A,B) and Brachyponera chinensis (D,E). All sections transverse. — Orientation: ↓ ventral.— Abbreviations: 0an2 – M. tentorioscapalis posterior; 0an3 – M. tentorioscapalis lateralis; 0bu1 – M. clypeobuccalis; 0bu5 – M. tentoriobuccalis posterior; 0ci1b – M. clypeopalatalis, paired portion; 0hy3 – M. tentoriohypopharyngalis; 0la5 – M. tentoriopraementalis; 0md1 – M. craniomandibularis internus; 0md1sf – M. craniomandibularis internus, direct fibers; 0md3 – M. craniomandibularis externus; 0mx3 – M. tentoriocardinalis; ata – anterior tentorial arm; bt – buccal tube; cc – cardinal condyle; cd – cardo; epk – epipharyngeal keel; esr – epistomal ridge; ll – lateral tentorial lamella; ml – mesal tentorial lamella; md – mandible; mda – mandibular apodeme; Mpel – M. pharyngoepipharyngalis, lateral portion; mxg – maxillary gland; oa – oral arm; ph – pharynx; phg – pharyngeal gland; pgr – postgenal ridge; pph – prepharynx; pphg – prepharyngeal gland; pphgo – prepharyngeal gland opening; sc – scapus; svd – salivary duct; toa – torular apodeme.
Fig. 2 in Comparative analysis of worker head anatomy of Formica and Brachyponera (Hymenoptera: Formicidae)
Fig. 2. SEM micrographs of heads of Formica rufa (A – C) and Brachyponera luteipes (D – F). Note the slight difference in shape between a small (A,B) and a larger head (C) in Formica rufa. A,D: Dorsal view. B,E: Lateral view. C,F: Ventral view. — Abbreviations: al – atala; atp – anterior tentorial pit; ce – compound eye; cl – clypeus; dma – dorsal mandibular articulation; es – epistomal sulcus; fr – frontal area; frc – frontal carina; fl – frontal line; ga – galea; glo – glossa; hysc – hypostomal carina; hyst – elongated tip of hypostomal carina; lbr – labrum; md – mandible; oc – ocelli; oca – occipital carina; occ – occipital region; pgb – postgenal bridge; pgr – postgenal ridge (visible as line of smooth cuticle); plb – labial palp; pmx – maxillary palp; pm – prementum; pocc – postocciput; sca – supraclypeal area; st – stipes; to – torulus; tol – torular lobe; vma – ventral mandibular articulation; vt – area of vertex. — Symbols: white arrowhead – ventral continuation of occipital carina; black arrowhead – groove on lateral clypeus.
Fig. 3 in Comparative analysis of worker head anatomy of Formica and Brachyponera (Hymenoptera: Formicidae)
Fig. 3. SEM micrographs of the antennae and antennal sockets of Formica rufa (B,D,F) and Brachyponera luteipes (A,C,E). A – D: Dorsal view. E,F: Lateral view. — Abbreviations: ac – torular acetabulum; bb – bulbus; bbn – bulbus neck; es – epistomal sulcus; frc – frontal carina; pd – pedicellus; sc – scapus; tol – torular lobe; trl – lateral torular arch.
Fig. 13 in Comparative analysis of worker head anatomy of Formica and Brachyponera (Hymenoptera: Formicidae)
Fig. 13. Histological sections of head of Formica rufa. A,B,C: Cross sections. D,E: Frontal sections. — Orientation: A,B,C: ↓ ventral; D: ↓ anterior region; E: ← anterior region. — Abbreviations: 0an4 – M. tentorioscapalis medialis; 0bu1 – M. clypeobuccalis; 0bu5 – M. tentoriobuccalis posterior; 0ci1b – M. clypeopalatalis, paired portion; 0hy2 – M. tentoriooralis; 0hy3 – M. tentoriohypopharyngalis; 0hy7 – M. praementosalivarialis; 0hy9 – M. oralis transversalis; 0la5 – M. tentoriopraementalis; 0la11 – M. praementoparaglossalis; 0la12 – M. praementoglossalis; 0la14 – M. praementopalpalis externus; 0md3 – M. craniomandibularis externus; 0mx3 – M. tentoriocardinalis; 0mx7 – M. stipitogalealis; 0mx8 – M. stipitopalpalis externus; 0la14 – M. praementopalpalis externus; al – atala; ata – anterior tentorial arm; bpb – basiparaglossal brush; bt – buccal tube; cd – cardo; dhy – distal hypopharynx; ep – epipharynx; hyb – hypopharyngeal button; hyr – hypopharyngeal rod; ibp – infrabuccal pouch; lc – lacinia; ll – lateral tentorial lamella; md – mandible; mda – mandibular apodeme; mdgd – mandibular gland duct; mdgr – mandibular gland reservoir; Mpel – M. pharyngoepipharyngalis, lateral portion; mxg – maxillary gland; mxgo – maxillary gland opening; oa – oral arm; plb – palpus labialis; pma – premental arm; pmx – palpus maxillaris; pph – prepharynx; pphg – prepharyngeal gland; pphgo – prepharyngeal gland opening; sc – scapus; sp – sitophore plate; spc – stipito-premental conjunctivum; st – stipes; sv – salivarium; svd – salivary duct; svo – salivary opening.
Fig. 6 in Comparative analysis of worker head anatomy of Formica and Brachyponera (Hymenoptera: Formicidae)
Fig. 6. SEM micrographs of the maxillae of Formica rufa (A,B) and Brachyponera luteipes (C – F). A: Dorsal view, slightly shifted frontolaterad. B: Mesoposterior view. E,H: Close view of the paraglossa. C,D,F: Ventral view. E: Dorsolateral view. — Abbreviations: 0mx1 – M. craniocardinalis externus; cd – cardo; csga – conical sensilla of galea; dlsst – distal lateral stipital surface; ga – galea; gacr – galeal crown; lc – lacinia; lcc – lacinial comb; mtga – galeal microtrichia; mxc – maxillary / galeal crown; pmx – palpus maxillaris; st – stipes. — Symbols: white arrowheads – fields of microtrichia on lacinia; black arrowheads – extended distal lateral edge of stipes.
Fig. 1 in Comparative analysis of worker head anatomy of Formica and Brachyponera (Hymenoptera: Formicidae)
Fig. 1. Photomicrographs of heads of Formica rufa (A – C) and Brachyponera luteipes (D – F). Note the slight difference in shape between a small (A,B) and a larger head (C). A,D: Dorsal view. B,E: Lateral view. C,F: Ventral view. — Abbreviations: ce – compound eye; cl – clypeus; dma – dorsal mandibular articulation; es – epistomal sulcus; fr – frontal area; frc – frontal carina; fl – frontal line; ga – galea; glo – glossa; hysc – hypostomal carina; hyst – elongated tip of hypostomal carina; lbr – labrum; md – mandible; oc – ocelli; oca – occipital carina; occ – occipital region; pgb – postgenal bridge; pgr – postgenal ridge (visible through the head capsule); plb – labial palp; pmx – maxillary palp; pm – prementum; pocc – postocciput; sca – supraclypeal area; st – stipes; to – torulus; tol – torular lobe; vma – ventral mandibular articulation; vt – area of the vertex. — Symbols: white arrowhead – ventral carina on the postgena; black arrowhead – groove on lateral clypeus.
Fig. 5 in Comparative analysis of worker head anatomy of Formica and Brachyponera (Hymenoptera: Formicidae)
Fig. 5. Volume renderings of head of Formica rufa (CASENT0709411: A,B; CASENT0790267: E,F) and Brachyponera luteipes (CASENT0709409: C,D,G,H). A,C,E,G: Upper part dorsal view, lower part ventral view. B,D,F,H: Sagittal view. A – D: Mandibular musculature and mandibular gland. E – H: Antennal musculature, in F and H parts of antennal torulus transparent to show muscles and bulbus. — Abbreviations: 0an1 – M. tentorioscapalis anterior; 0an2 – M. tentorioscapalis posterior; 0an3 – M. tentorioscapalis lateralis; 0an4 – M. tentorioscapalis medialis; 0an6 – M. scapopedicellaris lateralis; 0an7 – M. scapopedicellaris medialis; 0md1 – M. craniomandibularis internus; 0md3 – M. craniomandibularis externus; 0md8 – M. tentoriomandibularis; al – atala; amp – antennal ampulla;
Fig. 11 in Comparative analysis of worker head anatomy of Formica and Brachyponera (Hymenoptera: Formicidae)
Fig. 11. Volume renderings of heads of Formica rufa (CASENT0790267: A,C – E) and Brachyponera luteipes (CASENT0709409: B,F – H). A,B: Frontal view of head capsule. C,F: Dorsal view of cephalic digestive tract with glands and parts of the musculature, 0lb2, and the central nervous system. D,G: Ventral view of cephalic digestive tract including glands, and the central nervous system. E,H: Sagittal view of cephalic digestive tract including glands, musculature and buccal cavity, and the central nervous system. — Abbreviations: 0bu1 – M. clypeobuccalis; 0bu2 – M. frontobuccalis anterior; 0bu3 – M. frontobuccalis posterior; 0bu5 – M. tentoriobuccalis posterior; 0ci1a – M. clypeopalatalis, unpaired portion; 0ci1b – M. clypeopalatalis, paired portion; 0hy1 – M. frontooralis; 0hy2 – M. tentoriooralis; 0hy9 – M. oralis transversalis; 0lb2 – M. frontoepipharyngalis; 0ph2 – M. tentoriopharyngalis; ala – atalar acetabulum; amo – anatomical mouth opening; ata – anterior tentorial arm; atp – anterior tentorial pit; br – brain; bt – buccal tube; clf – ventral clypeal projection / flange; cc – cardinal condyle; dhy – distal hypopharynx; dta – dorsal tentorial arm; dma – dorsal mandibular articulation; ep – epipharynx; epk – epipharyngeal keel; fc – frontal commissure; fg – frontal ganglion; fmo – functional mouth opening; frc – frontal carina; hyc – hypostomal cavity; hysc – hypostomal carina; hysp – hypostomal process; ibp – infrabuccal pouch; lb – labium; lbr – labrum; mped – M. pharyngoepipharyngalis, dorsal portion; mpel – M. pharyngoepipharyngalis, lateral portion; nan – antennal nerve; no – optical nerve; oa – oral arm; ocn – ocellar nerve; opl – optic lobes; pgr – postgenal ridge; ph – pharynx; phg – pharyngeal gland; pph – prepharynx; pphg – prepharyngeal gland; pta – posterior tentorial arm; sog – suboesophageal ganglion; tb – tentorial bridge; to – torulus; tol – torular lobe; trl – lateral torular arch; vma – ventral mandibular articulation. — Colors: beige / brown – mouthparts; green – cephalic digestive tract (prepharynx and pharynx); grey – cuticle; orange / red – muscles; purple – glands; yellow – nervous system. — Symbols: white arrowhead – hypostomal hump contacting mandibular groove; * – anterior surface of triangular hypostomal process receiving lateral stipital margin.
Fig. 4 in Comparative analysis of worker head anatomy of Formica and Brachyponera (Hymenoptera: Formicidae)
Fig. 4. SEM micrographs of the mandibles of Formica rufa (A,B) and Brachyponera luteipes (C – F). A,C: Dorsal view. B,D: Ventral view. E,F: Dorsolateral view. — Abbreviations: al – atala; at – apical tooth; bm – basal margin; dma – dorsal mandibular articulation; ma – mandalus; mdp – mandibular pit; mdc – mandibular carinae; mgo – mandibular gland opening; mmg – mesal mandibular groove. — Symbols: white arrowhead – groove distad mandalus; * – groove mesodorsad ventral mandibular articulation; black arrows – minute tubercles; white arrows – minute pores; white outlines – area of mandalus.
Fig. 9 in Comparative analysis of worker head anatomy of Formica and Brachyponera (Hymenoptera: Formicidae)
Fig. 9. Volume renderings of the head of Formica rufa (CASENT0790267: A,B,E,F) and Brachyponera luteipes (CASENT0709409: C,D,G,H). A,C,E,G: Upper part dorsal view, lower part ventral view. B,D,F,H: Sagittal view. A – D: Maxillary musculature and gland. E – H: Labial musculature and salivary duct. — Abbreviations: 0hy3 – M. tentoriohypopharyngalis; 0hy7 – M. praementosalivarialis; 0hy12 – M. hypopharyngosalivarialis; 0la5 – M. tentoriopraementalis; 0la11 – M. praementoparaglossalis; 0la12 – M. praementoglossalis; 0la14 – M. praementopalpalis externus; 0la16 – M. palpopalpalis labii primus; 0la17 – M. palpopalpalis labii secundus; 0mx1 – M. craniocardinalis externus; 0mx3 – M. tentoriocardinalis; 0mx4 – M. tentoriostipitalis anterior; 0mx6 – M. stipitolacinialis; 0mx7 – M. stipitogalealis; 0mx8 – M. stipitopalpalis externus; 0mx12 – M. palpopalpalis maxillae primus; 0mx13 – M. palpopalpalis maxillae secundus; ata – anterior tentorial arm; dta – dorsal tentorial arm; lb – labium; ll – lateral lamella; ml – mesal lamella; mx – maxilla; mxg – maxillary gland; pta – posterior tentorial arm; ppt – posterior process of tentorium; sv – salivary sclerite; svd – salivary duct; tb – tentorial bridge. — Colors: beige / brown – mouthparts; grey – cuticle; orange / red – muscles; purple – glands and ducts.
FIGURES 7–14. 7. Ptetica cristulata Saussure, 1884 in Comparative analysis of mitogenomes among three species of Haplotropidini grasshoppers and a new species of the genus Sulcotropis (Orthoptera: Acridoidea Pamphagidae) from China
FIGURES 7–14. 7. Ptetica cristulata Saussure, 1884 ♂(after 2020 Orthoptera Species File); 8. Pyrgodera Fischer von Waldheim, 1846 ♂(after Zhang, 2019); 9. Sulcohumpacris hebeiensis Yin, Yin & Cao, 2017 ♂(after Yin et al, 2017); 10. Humphaplotropis taishanensis Xiao, Yin & Yin, 2013 ♂(after Xiao et al, 2013); 11. Sulcotropis cyanipes Yin et Chou, 1979 ♂; 12. Haplotropis heiheensis. Zhang, Li et Yin, 2020 ♂; 13. Sulcotropis cyanipes Yin et Chou, 1979 ♀; 14. Haplotropis brunneriana Saussure, 1888(after Saussure, 1888).
Data from: Comparative analysis of DNA repeats and identification of novel Fesreba centromeric element in fescues and ryagrasses
<p>Background<br> Cultivated grasses are an important source of food for domestic animals worldwide. Better knowledge of their genomes can speed up the development of new cultivars with better quality and resistance to biotic and abiotic stresses. The most widely grown grasses are tetraploid ryegrass species ( Lolium spp.) and diploid and hexaploid fescue species (Festuca spp.). In this work, we characterized repetitive DNA sequences and their contribution to genome size in five fescue and two ryegrass species, as well as one fescue and two ryegrass cultivars.</p> <p>Results<br> Partial genome sequences produced by Illumina technology were used for genome-wide comparative analyses using RepeatExplorer pipeline. Retrotransposons were found to be the most abundant repeat types in all seven grass species. Athila element of Ty3/gypsy family showed the most striking differences in copy number between fescues and ryegrasses. The sequence data enabled the assembly of an LTR element Fesreba, which is highly enriched in centromeric and (peri)centromeric regions in all species. A combination of FISH with a probe specific to Fesreba element and immunostaining with CENH3 antibody showed their colocalization and indicated a possible role of Fesreba in centromere function.</p> <p>Conclusions<br> Comparative repeatome analysis in a set of fescues and ryegrasses provided new insights into their genome organization and divergence, including the assembly of LTR element Fesreba. A new LTR element Fesreba was identified and found abundant in centromeric regions of the fescues and ryegrasses. It may have a role in the function of their centromeres.</p>
Data from: Comparing traditional and Bayesian approaches to ecological meta-analysis
<p>1. Despite the wide application of meta-analysis in ecology, some of the traditional methods used for meta-analysis may not perform well given the type of data characteristic of ecological meta-analyses.</p> <p>2. We reviewed published meta-analyses on the ecological impacts of global climate change, evaluating the number of replicates used in the primary studies (ni) and the number of studies or records (k) that were aggregated to calculate a mean effect size. We used the results of the review in a simulation experiment to assess the performance of conventional frequentist and Bayesian meta-analysis methods for estimating a mean effect size and its uncertainty interval.</p> <p>3. Our literature review showed that ni and k were highly variable, distributions were right-skewed, and were generally small (median ni =5, median k=44). Our simulations show that the choice of method for calculating uncertainty intervals was critical for obtaining appropriate coverage (close to the nominal value of 0.95). When k was low (<40), 95% coverage was achieved by a confidence interval based on the t-distribution that uses an adjusted standard error (the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman, HKSJ), or by a Bayesian credible interval, whereas bootstrap or z-distribution confidence intervals had lower coverage. Despite the importance of the method to calculate the uncertainty interval, 39% of the meta-analyses reviewed did not report the method used, and of the 61% that did, 94% used a potentially problematic method, which may be a consequence of software defaults.</p> <p>4. In general, for a simple random-effects meta-analysis, the performance of the best frequentist and Bayesian methods were similar for the same combinations of factors (k and mean replication), though the Bayesian approaches had higher than nominal (>95%) coverage for the mean effect when k was very low (k<15). Our literature review suggests that many meta-analyses that used z-distribution or bootstrapping confidence intervals may have over-estimated the statistical significance of their results when the number of studies was low; more appropriate methods need to be adopted in ecological meta-analyses.</p>
Comparative analysis of positioning accuracy of Garmin Forerunner wearable GNSS receivers in dynamic testing
<p>Required dataset for the manuscript.</p>
Data from: The first complete mitochondrial genome of the Indian Tent Turtle, Pangshura tentoria (Testudines: Geoemydidae): characterization and comparative analysis
Characterization of complete mitogenome is a widely used genomics study for species delineation and evolutionary research. However, the sequences and structural motifs contained within the mitogenome have been rarely examined to understand the phylogeny and evolutionary history among Testudines. Hence, the mitogenomic features of several Testudines taxa are still anonymous to the scientific communities. The present study decodes the first complete mitochondrial genome of the Indian Tent Turtle, Pangshura tentoria (16,657 bp) by using next-generation sequencing. This denovo assembly encodes 37 genes: 13 protein coding genes (PCGs), 22 transfer RNA (tRNAs), two ribosomal RNA (rRNAs), and one control region (CR). The mitogenome contained 19 intergenic spacer and six overlapping regions. Most of the genes were encoded on majority strand, except for one PCG (NADH dehydrogenase subunit 6) and eight tRNAs. Most of the PCGs were started with an ATG initiation codon, except for cytochrome oxidase subunit 1 with 'GTG' and NADH dehydrogenase subunit 5 with 'ATA'. The termination codons, 'TAA' and 'AGA' were observed in NADH dehydrogenase subunit 4l and NADH dehydrogenase subunit 6 respectively. The Relative Synonymous Codon Usage analysis revealed the maximum abundance of Alanine, Isoleucine, Leucine, and Threonine. The non-synonymous/synonymous ratios were <1 in all PCGs, which indicates strong negative selection among all Geoemydid species. The study also found the typical cloverleaf secondary structure in most of the tRNA genes, except for Serine (trnS1) with lack of the conventional DHU arm. The Wobble base pairing was observed in the different stems (DHU, acceptor, and anticodon) of 11 tRNAs. The comparative study of Geoemydid mitogenomes revealed the occurrence of tandem repeats was frequent in the 3´ end of CR. Further, two copies of a unique tandem repeat 'TTCTCTTT' were identified in P. tentoria. The Bayesian and Maximum Likelihood phylogenetic trees using concatenation of 13 PCGs revealed the close relationships of P. tentoria with Batagur trivittata in the studied dataset. All the Geoemydid species showed distinct clustering with high bootstrap support congruent with previous evolutionary hypotheses. We suggest that the generations of more mitogenomes of Geoemydid species, especially for Batagurinae subfamily, are required to improve our understanding their in-depth phylogenetic and evolutionary relationships.
ScienceDex guides
Understand access before you commit
These curated guides explain access requirements, typical timelines, costs, and reuse considerations for widely used research datasets.
Allen Brain Atlas
Allen Brain Atlas is an Allen Institute collection of brain map atlases, datasets, APIs, and analysis tools covering mouse, human, and non-human primate brain resources.
Annotated Behaviour and Observability Dataset (ABODe)
ABODe is a University of Edinburgh DataShare dataset for behavior classification in group-housed mice using home-cage video, identities, bounding boxes, ground-plate positions, and annotator labels.
DANDI Archive for NWB datasets
DANDI is a BRAIN Initiative archive for publishing and sharing neurophysiology data, including electrophysiology, optophysiology, and behavioral data packaged as NWB and related standards.
International Brain Laboratory public data
The International Brain Laboratory public data releases expose standardized mouse decision-making experiments, including Neuropixels recordings, widefield calcium imaging, behavior, and session metadata accessed through the ONE API.
OpenNeuro
OpenNeuro is a free, open platform for sharing neuroimaging datasets, with public search, dataset pages, and download paths for web, S3, DataLad, and the OpenNeuro CLI.