コーパス検索結果 (１語後でソート)
通し番号をクリックするとPubMedの該当ページを表示します
1 unoplaque assay and 6.1 log10 copies/mL with polymerase chain reaction).
2 A (pgRNA) in each cell using droplet digital polymerase chain reaction.
3 mes, including Western blot and quantitative polymerase chain reaction.
4 astructural examination, and droplet digital polymerase chain reaction.
5 wabs were collected and tested for RSV using polymerase chain reaction.
6 real-time reverse-transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction.
7 3 (Chil3 or YM1) were evaluated by real time polymerase chain reaction.
8 cing and sensitive allele-specific real-time polymerase chain reaction.
9 immunohistochemistry, western blotting, and polymerase chain reaction.
10 and HIV-DNA were amplified by ultrasensitive polymerase chain reaction.
11 and CMV viremia was tracked via quantitative polymerase chain reaction.
12 genes was analyzed by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction.
13 tes using reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction.
14 om sterile sites were serotyped by real-time polymerase chain reaction.
15 essenger RNA were quantified by quantitative polymerase chain reaction.
16 okines was measured by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction.
17 rus using a VP6 semi-quantitative, real-time polymerase chain reaction.
18 -bearing liver were assessed by quantitative polymerase chain reaction.
19 All patients were tested for influenza using polymerase chain reaction.
20 s by using general primer GP5+/GP6+-mediated polymerase chain reaction.
21 y, immunohistochemistry, flow cytometry, and polymerase chain reaction.
22 istochemistry, immunoblots, and quantitative polymerase chain reaction.
23 y, RNA sequencing, or real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction.
24 ctions using real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction.
25 rols resulted in parasitemia by quantitative polymerase chain reaction.
26 by thick blood smear (TBS) and quantitative polymerase chain reaction.
27 obacterium bovis BCG, as tested by real-time polymerase chain reaction.
28 Cases were confirmed by real-time polymerase chain reaction.
29 ance were evaluated by reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction.
30 alyzed by quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction.
31 SAA) were analyzed by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction.
32 were obtained through reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction.
33 immunofluorescence, or reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction.
34 est CT versus those of reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction.
35 t proof of COVID-19 by reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction.
36 ion was assessed by culture and quantitative polymerase chain reaction.
37 ime using reverse-transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction.
38 CoPEC by quantitative reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction.
39 18S rDNA by photo-induced electron transfer polymerase chain reaction.
40 lla intermedia (Pi) was done by quantitative polymerase chain reaction.
41 eillance for influenza illness, confirmed by polymerase chain reaction.
42 us RNA by reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction.
44 V-2 using reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction, alone or in pools of differen
53 ulated by quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction analysis were measured in an i
55 were assessed by taxa-specific quantitative polymerase chain reaction and 16S ribosomal RNA metageno
56 Among 12 persons who infected mosquitoes, polymerase chain reaction and amplicon deep sequencing w
57 ase serum by real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction and analyzed in relation to pr
58 ion were quantified by reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction and area under the curve titer
59 (TLs) by quantitative reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction and evaluated the prognostic i
60 were tested for PeV by reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction and genotypes determined by su
63 luorescence, xMAP, and reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction and organoids were generated.
64 nts for SARS-CoV-2 via reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction and performed symptom assessme
65 fied with reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction and protein expression assesse
66 nd IL34 mRNA in GF was analyzed by real-time polymerase chain reaction and protein expression visuali
67 o the current MAPREC (mutational analysis by polymerase chain reaction and restriction enzyme cleavag
68 files (by quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction and RNAscope) of small intesti
70 cal biology with the introduction of digital polymerase chain reaction and single-cell sequencing.
71 uch were comparable to standard quantitative polymerase chain reaction and the assays were within the
72 ogical properties were analyzed by real-time polymerase chain reaction and then analyzed for the perc
73 icity and apoptotic assays, and quantitative polymerase chain reaction and Western blot analyses, wer
75 ies/mL by reverse-transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction) and had >=4-fold rise in seru
76 ues were analyzed by histology, quantitative polymerase chain reaction, and 16S ribosomal RNA gene se
77 estern blot, immunohistochemistry, real-time polymerase chain reaction, and enzyme-linked immunosorbe
80 lyzed by immunoblots, quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction, and functional assays monitor
81 atory molecules was measured by quantitative polymerase chain reaction, and GCs and T follicular help
83 id and nasal swab specimens were assessed by polymerase chain reaction, and histopathological analysi
85 nvasion assays and by immunoblots, real-time polymerase chain reaction, and liquid chromatography-mas
86 ns by immunoblotting, real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction, and the Seahorse live-cell me
91 old (Ct) values from a reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction assay applied to nasopharyngea
92 and a previously developed RLEP quantitative polymerase chain reaction assay for M. leprae, were vali
96 and viral analysis (SARS-CoV-2 on real-time polymerase chain reaction assay), with correlation of pa
100 e virus that causes COVID-19) on qualitative polymerase-chain-reaction assay, who were admitted betwe
102 old (C(T)) values from reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction assays applied to nasopharynge
103 ower respiratory tract reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction assays, (b) severe COVID-19 in
106 tudents in years 10 and 11, as identified by polymerase-chain-reaction assays for PorA (encoding pori
107 cells by reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction at 8 and 24 hours exposure.
108 ges were evaluated by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction at the end of each incubation
109 t 5 patients (96%) had reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction based COVID-19 testing before
112 r SARS-CoV-2 RNA by nasal swab and real-time polymerase chain reaction between March 21 and May 4, 20
113 ls were analyzed by immunoblot, quantitative polymerase chain reaction, chromosome immunoprecipitatio
114 ARN diagnosis based on clinical features and polymerase chain reaction confirmation who were treated
115 spectrum of initial symptoms at the onset of polymerase chain reaction-confirmed coronavirus disease
116 and discharge dispositions of patients with polymerase chain reaction-confirmed coronavirus disease
117 dy (n=38 patients with reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction-confirmed COVID-19 and n=24 no
118 cidences) per 10 000 persons and 95% CIs for polymerase chain reaction-confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis,
119 atients with real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction-confirmed COVID-19 from two la
120 e study, patients with reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction-confirmed COVID-19 who were ad
122 LISAs) and 2 rapid tests in 77 patients with polymerase chain reaction-confirmed severe acute respira
124 with K562 cells; validation by quantitative polymerase chain reaction demonstrated overexpression of
126 s (classical and nonclassical), custom-built polymerase chain reaction devices, gas-phase analyte det
127 Gene expression was assessed by real-time polymerase chain reaction, DNA damage by confocal micros
129 ese were in good agreement with quantitative polymerase chain reaction effect concentrations determin
130 RT-qPCR (quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction), ELISA, co-IP, immunostaining
131 t) for viremia detected by weekly plasma CMV polymerase chain reaction for 100 days (n = 100) or valg
132 blot, and quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction for markers of autophagy, DNA
133 y and were analyzed by reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction for periodontal viruses such a
134 th negative results of reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction for severe acute respiratory s
136 em by flow cytometry, quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction, functional analysis, and RNA
137 ified by fluorescence quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction, further confirmed by fluoresc
138 9) were evaluated for real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction gene expression using the TaqM
139 by gene-expression microarray, quantitative polymerase chain reaction, immunoblot, and immunofluores
140 uminescence assay, immunoblotting, real-time polymerase chain reaction, immunohistochemistry, and Mas
141 factors for KSHV DNA detection by real-time polymerase chain reaction in blood and by viral shedding
142 ues were quantified by reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction in fecal samples from a subset
144 age of participants with virus detectable by polymerase chain reaction in nasopharyngeal swab at day
146 pment of a reverse-transcription, long-range polymerase chain reaction (LRPCR) assay for efficient ge
148 tein expression were assessed with real-time polymerase chain reaction (n=4-6/group) and Western blot
150 y using 16S rRNA sequencing and quantitative polymerase chain reaction of archaeal and bacterial nitr
151 h 16S rDNA MiSeq sequencing and quantitative polymerase chain reaction of denitrification genes.
152 b) histopathological analysis; (c) real-time polymerase chain reaction of endothelial nitric oxide sy
153 tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection by polymerase chain reaction of nasopharyngeal swab or sero
154 Combined with DNA-based detection (e.g. polymerase chain reaction or DNA sequencing), the detect
156 t specimens by culture and/or real-time (RT) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) >30 days after symptom o
157 parum infections, using both microscopy- and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) -based methods, was perf
158 set of primers (245 SSR) was validated using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification, of which
159 and then validate the mutations with digital polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis of tissue sampl
160 in blood and rRNA in CSF were detected using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and reverse transcriptas
161 ommon SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic test modalities, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and serology, over the d
163 tested by quantitative reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and/or IgM Zika MAC-ELIS
167 ic Health England for characterization using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) detection of GES, pulsed
168 to test positive for the causative virus by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) even after clinical reco
170 e performed quantitative multiplex real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for Pneumocystis jirovec
171 me sequencing were used to design a specific polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for screening unsuspecte
173 ity 10(5) times higher to that obtained with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) in current general use.
174 The detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA by real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) in respiratory samples c
175 cidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) in seropositive and sero
176 tochondrial deletions by multiplex real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) in the fibroblast cultur
178 action step to perform reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is the primary method cu
180 included if they had a positive C. difficile polymerase chain reaction (PCR) performed on an unformed
181 for haemosporidian parasites using a nested polymerase chain reaction (PCR) protocol that targets th
182 (BPA) based on procalcitonin and respiratory polymerase chain reaction (PCR) results could help reduc
183 navirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection detected on polymerase chain reaction (PCR) screening of a large hom
185 n epidemiology study characterizes trends in polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test positivity for seve
186 This study documents results of SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing of environmental
190 face-enhanced Raman spectroscopy (SERS), and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) with a statistical tool
191 methods for analyzing point mutations, e.g., polymerase chain reaction (PCR), are based on difference
192 tion from the MNP, and its amplification via polymerase chain reaction (PCR), gel electrophoresis ind
193 observed significant reaction inhibition of polymerase chain reaction (PCR), loop-mediated isotherma
194 mask wearer at 1 month by antibody testing, polymerase chain reaction (PCR), or hospital diagnosis.
195 The primary outcome was the proportion of polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-adjusted adequate clinic
196 compare the contribution of a combination of polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based tests to culture m
197 ries of the first 18 patients diagnosed with polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 inf
200 performance of 16S ribosomal RNA gene (rRNA) polymerase chain reaction (PCR)/sequencing of SF and com
201 lving asymptomatic contacts of patients with polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR)-confirmed Covid-19 in Ca
202 tions (blood and tissue culture, plus tissue polymerase chain reaction [PCR] for Salmonella Typhi).
204 consecutive adult hospitalized patients with polymerase chain reaction positivity for severe acute re
212 n (OPG) were analyzed by ELISA, quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR), and immunohistochemist
214 nts, confirmed by microscopy or quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR), were included in the s
217 sted for SARS-CoV-2 by means of quantitative polymerase-chain-reaction (qPCR) assay of nares swab spe
219 were validated using quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) and immunohistochemi
221 lts were confirmed by quantitative real time-polymerase chain reaction (QRT-PCR) as a standard method
224 ingival tissues were processed for real-time polymerase chain reaction (real-time PCR) assessment of
225 al analysis, real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (real-time RT-PCR), and microa
226 ring January 2013-May 2017 with positive RSV polymerase chain reaction respiratory specimens was perf
227 izes the prevalence of reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction results positive for severe ac
228 OVID-19, patients with reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction results positive for severe ac
233 (SARS-CoV-2) based on reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) are being used to rul
234 ection methods such as reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) are the gold standard
235 syndrome coronavirus 2 reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay and a clinical
236 esults of chest CT and reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assays were compared
238 eptic ulcer, real time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) examination of abdomi
240 r influenza viruses by reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) in Australia, Canada,
241 Group 1 patients had reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) results obtained befo
242 S-CoV-2 virus-specific reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test is routinely use
243 a positive SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test result and who w
244 ome coronavirus 2 is a reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test, but chest CT ma
246 f COVID-19 and in whom reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) was performed (mean,
247 (SARS-CoV-2) based on reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), antibody testing, or
248 rology and traditional reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), novel quantitative R
249 the standard method of reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), particularly after t
250 currently employed is reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), which can have good
251 atients with real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)-confirmed COVID-19 in
252 Using data from 170 reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)-confirmed influenza v
253 uarantined people with reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)-confirmed SARS-CoV-2
258 asured by quantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) after 3, 6, or 24 ho
259 Reverse-transcription quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) is widely used for m
260 llowed by reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) to detect the purifi
261 tence (by quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR)) and infectivity (TC
262 or YFV by reverse transcriptase-quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR), 14 of which resulte
267 patients with positive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction [RT-PCR] results, 231 with neg
269 n 199 other patients, we performed real-time polymerase chain reaction screening for the new variant.
270 real-world utility of universal broad-range polymerase chain reaction sequencing for pathogen detect
272 Opsin transcripts detected by quantitative polymerase chain reaction (sws1, sws2, rh2.3, rh2.4, lws
273 raction method and a SYBR Green quantitative polymerase chain reaction (SyG-qPCR) assay were combined
275 having COVID-19, using reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction test or clinical consensus as
277 tion of SARS-CoV-2 via reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction testing, although false-negati
278 , a negative result on reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction testing, and no oligoclonal ba
282 This study describes the point prevalence of polymerase chain reaction tests positive for severe acut
284 o be more robust than reversed transcription polymerase chain reaction (the current standard), but it
285 n of the 16S rRNA gene and used quantitative polymerase chain reaction to detect Streptococcus mitis,
286 stance Information Study were analyzed using polymerase chain reaction to determine the influenza vir
289 nohistochemistry, and quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction; tumors were analyzed by mass
290 syndrome coronavirus 2 reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction was negative in nasopharyngeal
291 of CD147 protein in media, whereas real-time polymerase chain reaction was performed to evaluate the
292 emulsion, amplification, magnetics) digital polymerase chain reaction was seen in 10/14 patients (71
294 y, immunohistochemistry, and/or quantitative polymerase chain reaction; we performed nanoparticle tra
296 rastructural examination and droplet digital polymerase chain reaction were negative for viral presen
298 formed using real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction, Western blotting, immunohisto
299 gy, and positive RNAemia measured by digital polymerase chain reaction who were treated with 4 units
300 as confirmed using Western blot and specific polymerase chain reaction with sequencing on a different