1 t, 27 additional proteins were shared by all CRO-AP PEL cell lines.

2 nes from PEL (CRO-AP2, CRO-AP3, CRO-AP5, and CRO-AP6) were characterized by proteomics analysis of th

3 ur established cell lines from PEL (CRO-AP2, CRO-AP3, CRO-AP5, and CRO-AP6) were characterized by pro

4 ished cell lines from PEL (CRO-AP2, CRO-AP3, CRO-AP5, and CRO-AP6) were characterized by proteomics a

5  numerous models can be entertained, the ARO-CRO model is uniquely structured to meet the demand for

6 ve approach centered on partnerships between CROs and university-based academic research organization

7    All methods had a specificity of >90% for CROs, and for CPOs, the specificity ranged from 85 to 98

8 nkey plate method was the most sensitive for CROs (95%), while chromID CARBA and the Check-Direct CPE

9 ce of these proteins was confirmed by IHC in CRO-AP cell lines and in six other PEL cell lines, four

10 of the biologically inactive oligonucleotide CRO-26.

11 screened for carbapenem-resistant organisms (CROs) using several methods.

12 program, the contract research organization (CRO) that typically assists in executing the trial, regu

13 hey work in contract research organizations (CRO) or act as contract researchers, make clear statemen

14 nsferred to contract research organizations (CROs), validated, and implemented for the sample analysi

15 nesis, four established cell lines from PEL (CRO-AP2, CRO-AP3, CRO-AP5, and CRO-AP6) were characteriz

16 chers publish only under the auspices of the CRO.

17 ty Monitoring Board activities), whereas the CRO provides infrastructure for efficient trial executio