The null hypothesis here is "the insertion of the wild type MSH2 gene does NOT reduce the number of <em>C. neoformans </em>C3 and C6 cells". This hypothesis is not supported by Figure 2, thereby the alternative hypothesis is accepted.
In the scientific method, a null hypothesis is a plausible explanation that states that there is no statistically significant difference between a certain feature and/or variable of a particular population.
In this case, the null hypothesis indicates that there are no differences associated with the insertion of the wild-type MSH2 gene variant (i.e., the normal allele) in the growth rate of <em>C. neoformans</em> strains on a medium containing a toxic chemical (mutagenic agent).
Figure 2 does not support the null hypothesis because the growth of wild-type MSH2 gene inserted <em>C. neoformans</em> C3 and C6 strains is inhibited when they grow on a medium containing a toxic chemical, thereby this hypothesis is rejected and the alternative hypothesis is accepted.
Learn more in:
brainly.com/question/4454077
Hunt, barnett, and branch (1971) showed that between 60 and 70% of the individuals treated for alcohol, tobacco, or heroin abuse in abstinence-oriented programs had returned to their primary substance use three months after treatment. This study suggests that the relapse dynamic cuts across different substances of abuse and may be a fundamental aspect of all addictive behaviors, at present, abstinence is not a reliable or viable method for the treatment of addictions.
Answer:
Something called side groups
Explanation:
The side groups are what make each amino acid different from the others. Of the 20 side groups used to make proteins, there are two main groups: polar and non-polar. These names refer to the way the side groups, sometimes called "R" groups, interact with the environment.
That the property of all living things are made of many cells
