ライフサイエンスコーパス: prep

1 Manual fraction collection from a prep-HPLC is a common method; however, it often lacks th

2 nt prep; 42.5 % GrB vs 24 % GrA had adequate prep.

3 inhibitory genes, Fgf inhibitory genes, and prep, which encodes a TALE-family homeodomain protein, a

4 onents in preparative fractionations such as prep TREF (which normally uses xylene), by using TCB as

5 Mechanical bowel prep without oral antibiotics was administered to 49.6%

6 Patients receiving bowel prep with oral antibiotics were also less likely to have

7 ntrol, and oral antibiotics given when bowel prep used (SCIP-1 was not significant).

8 s similar between CT colonography with bowel prep (0.86) and colonoscopy (0.89).

9 ive high-performance liquid chromatographic (prep-HPLC) systems are used in many research schemes inc

10 eum was disrupted using an electrocardiogram prep pad prior to patch application.

11 tremendous resource for any lab that employs prep-HPLC methods.

12 66.5 % Gr B vs 38 % Gr A had excellent prep; 42.5 % GrB vs 24 % GrA had adequate prep.

13 on prep (SFP)) and gravity-driven filtration prep (GFP)) and pre-dispensed lyophilized reagents.

14 ple preparation workflows (simple filtration prep (SFP)) and gravity-driven filtration prep (GFP)) an

15 Automated fraction collectors for prep-HPLC systems can add thousands of dollars to the co

16 We developed the GC prep method as a solution to this problem.

17 Sensory-guided prep-liquid chromatography fractionation of a 10% aqueou

18 ices (LI) between biopsies taken after Klean-prep and those taken after Picolax preparation, for both

19 enzymes and size selection steps in library prep are non-trivial decisions that bias downstream prof

20 samples, we introduce a benchmark of library prep and sequencing using internal references generated

21 sis combined with Smart-3SEQ RNA-seq library prep generated high-quality data with similar ranked DEG

22 te the performance of a bulk RNA-seq library prep protocol optimized for analysis of many samples of

23 depth requirements, fast and simple library prep and high resolution splice site detection.

24 built upon a robust, high-throughput library prep protocol, upon which processed data has been verifi

25 ar ranked DEG lists when compared to library prep with extracted RNA or with Illumina TruSeq.

26 wed by Smart-3SEQ or Illumina TruSeq library prep.

27 atients, whereas 36.4% received a mechanical prep and oral antibiotics.

28 ABP alone compared to no prep resulted in significantly lower rates of surgical s

29 Of 8442 patients, 2296 (27.2%) had no-prep, 3822 (45.3%) MBP+/ABX-, and 2324 (27.5%) MBP+/ABX+

30 ing disorders, and disseminated cancer in no-prep.

31 ne (MBP+/ABX-), and no bowel preparation (no-prep) on outcomes, particularly anastomotic leak, surgic

32 ted with lower anastomotic leak rate than no-prep [OR = 0.45 (95% CI: 0.32-0.64)].

33 BX-: OR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.69-0.93] versus no-prep.

34 can add thousands of dollars to the cost of prep-HPLC and are thus not always available to budgetary

35 owel preparation compared to those with poor prep, 90.00% vs. 70.45%, respectively (P < 0.001).

36 -based analytic device (NEK-PAD) as a sample prep module of RANDx and obtain >100-fold post-wetting p

37 tom-up methods, the 24 h filter-aided sample prep (FASP) and Flash Digest (1 and 4 h) methods.

38 endoproteinase GluC digestion during sample prep, yet these differences persist to some degree.

39 d and versatile option for integrated sample prep or multidimensional analysis, and addresses the gla

40 ecific glycan monitoring with minimum sample prep.

41 e test combines DNA sequence specific sample prep to reduce the co-extraction of qPCR inhibitors with

42 a risk that can be reduced by modifying skin prep and injection practices.

43 ntaminants, likely originating from storage, prep, and sequencing pipelines.

44 and higher myocardial T2 values than did T2-prep FLASH (43.9 msec +/- 1.4 vs 40.0 msec +/- 1.6; P <

45 GC step, prior to analyte collection, in the prep-GC analysis of complex samples.

46 Drug coated balloons were used as vessel prep prior to stenting and showed a protective effect re

47 high-volume (7.0, SD 1.41) and medium-volume prep (6.9, SD 1.55), P = 0.77.

48 women were positive for trichomonads by wet prep or culture only in the urine.

49 nt (38 of 51) of women who had a vaginal wet prep or vaginal culture positive for trichomonads had mi

50 richomonas vaginalis by wet-preparation (wet-prep) microscopy and culture and for the presence of T.