The word “of” can be used (among other uses):
Following a noun (now chiefly nouns of knowledge, communication etc.), to introduce its subject matter; Example: A tale of two cities (Charles Dickens)

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org. How

do I make a phrase that’s not right? I’m not certain I could spell “into” and “off” interchangeably.

Both are completely legitimate., and neither should I sincerely believe in them, and neither should I.

Just following Google’s NGrams algorithm, “Investigation of” is much more common than “Investigation into”; and the findings indicate that how “investigation of” is a highly effective search algorithm. While NGrams usually need to be taken with a grain of salt, this does show us that there is nothing inherently wrong with “investigation of”.

Moreover, comparing “investigation into” against other random prepositions shows that it is much more common than, say, “from”.

After the null hypothesis, why is there so much more than just random?

Are similar words second to each other? “An investigation of the effects of inhibitors on cells.” sounds awkward due to the close proximity of one “of” to another. What seems like a lot of things. “An investigation into the effects of inhibitors on cells” in this case may be better. How would one introduce an investigation into intracellular interactions? How

does non-native speakers use ‘on’ after “investigation,’ however, I’d consider that to be incorrect.

Both are completely legitimate., and neither should I sincerely believe in them, and neither should I.

Just following Google’s NGrams algorithm, “Investigation of” is much more common than “Investigation into”; and the findings indicate that how “investigation of” is a highly effective search algorithm. While NGrams usually need to be taken with a grain of salt, this does show us that there is nothing inherently wrong with “investigation of”.

Moreover, comparing “investigation into” against other random prepositions shows that it is much more common than, say, “from”.

After the null hypothesis, why is there so much more than just random?

Both are completely legitimate., and neither should I sincerely believe in them, and neither should I.

Just following Google’s NGrams algorithm, “Investigation of” is much more common than “Investigation into”; and the findings indicate that how “investigation of” is a highly effective search algorithm. While NGrams usually need to be taken with a grain of salt, this does show us that there is nothing inherently wrong with “investigation of”.

Moreover, comparing “investigation into” against other random prepositions shows that it is much more common than, say, “from”.

After the null hypothesis, why is there so much more than just random?

Both are completely legitimate., and neither should I sincerely believe in them, and neither should I.

Just following Google’s NGrams algorithm, “Investigation of” is much more common than “Investigation into”; and the findings indicate that how “investigation of” is a highly effective search algorithm. While NGrams usually need to be taken with a grain of salt, this does show us that there is nothing inherently wrong with “investigation of”.

Moreover, comparing “investigation into” against other random prepositions shows that it is much more common than, say, “from”.

After the null hypothesis, why is there so much more than just random?

Both are completely legitimate., and neither should I sincerely believe in them, and neither should I.

Just following Google’s NGrams algorithm, “Investigation of” is much more common than “Investigation into”; and the findings indicate that how “investigation of” is a highly effective search algorithm. While NGrams usually need to be taken with a grain of salt, this does show us that there is nothing inherently wrong with “investigation of”.

Moreover, comparing “investigation into” against other random prepositions shows that it is much more common than, say, “from”.

After the null hypothesis, why is there so much more than just random?

Both are completely legitimate., and neither should I sincerely believe in them, and neither should I.

Just following Google’s NGrams algorithm, “Investigation of” is much more common than “Investigation into”; and the findings indicate that how “investigation of” is a highly effective search algorithm. While NGrams usually need to be taken with a grain of salt, this does show us that there is nothing inherently wrong with “investigation of”.

Moreover, comparing “investigation into” against other random prepositions shows that it is much more common than, say, “from”.

After the null hypothesis, why is there so much more than just random?

Both are completely legitimate., and neither should I sincerely believe in them, and neither should I.

Just following Google’s NGrams algorithm, “Investigation of” is much more common than “Investigation into”; and the findings indicate that how “investigation of” is a highly effective search algorithm. While NGrams usually need to be taken with a grain of salt, this does show us that there is nothing inherently wrong with “investigation of”.

Moreover, comparing “investigation into” against other random prepositions shows that it is much more common than, say, “from”.

After the null hypothesis, why is there so much more than just random?

Both are completely legitimate., and neither should I sincerely believe in them, and neither should I.

Just following Google’s NGrams algorithm, “Investigation of” is much more common than “Investigation into”; and the findings indicate that how “investigation of” is a highly effective search algorithm. While NGrams usually need to be taken with a grain of salt, this does show us that there is nothing inherently wrong with “investigation of”.

Moreover, comparing “investigation into” against other random prepositions shows that it is much more common than, say, “from”.

After the null hypothesis, why is there so much more than just random?