ライフサイエンスコーパス: checkerboard

1 s of 44 bacterial species were determined by checkerboard.

2 he human visual cortex induced by a flashing checkerboard.

3 sectors; each sector was a pattern-reversing checkerboard.

4 boxes with a 3-Hz audio cue and a reversing checkerboard.

5 for the presence of P. gingivalis by DNA-DNA checkerboard.

6 tients, by using different sizes of circular checkerboards.

7 periment was conducted by using conventional checkerboard 8-Hz light-flash stimulation of the eye and

8 Checkerboard analyses indicated that LPA causes both che

9 distinct biologic phenotypes based upon DNA checkerboard analyses of eight plaque bacteria, serum im

10 g from 1 to 30 microg/ml, and Zigmond Hirsch checkerboard analysis indicated that both chemotaxis and

11 Checkerboard analysis indicated that SPP stimulates both

12 Checkerboard analysis showed that monocytes migrated in

13 Using chemotactic checkerboard analysis, the greatest motogenic response t

14 emokinetic for monocytes, as demonstrated by checkerboard analysis.

15 lid discs) and to changes in target texture (checkerboard and concentric patterns).

16 in a dyad was nonuniform containing a mix of checkerboard and side-by-side arrangements, as well as i

17 the functional response to a visual flashing checkerboard and their relationship to panic symptoms as

18 gnaling produces other patterns that are not checkerboard, and therefore a new model is needed.

19 jor impact, as well as faces, houses, tools, checkerboards, and false fonts.

20 fMRI responses to faces, scenes, color, and checkerboard annuli at different visual field eccentrici

21 The sensing elements on the checkerboard are composed of silver-capped nanoslit arra

22 es groups were obtained by a reverse capture checkerboard assay for 30 subjects with caries and 30 he

23 valuated using whole genomic DNA probes in a checkerboard assay to 23 subgingival species.

24 used bioluminescent E. coli in a simplified checkerboard assay to generate unique drug interaction f

25 and nitrocefin), and synergy (determined by checkerboard assay) between azithromycin and outer-membr

26 aconazole and tacrolimus were synergistic in checkerboard assays for 4 clinical isolates of R. oryzae

27 emonstrated by fluorescence spectroscopy and checkerboard assays, the latter confirming strong to mod

28 inations of clade B and C reagents tested in checkerboard assays.

29 d finger-sequencing task, cued by a flashing checkerboard (at 2 or 4 Hz).

30 e correlated than in response to white noise checkerboards, but they were much less correlated than p

31 Test stimuli consisted of a static checkerboard (checks) and dichoptic static random dot (R

32 Second, they viewed a full-field flickering checkerboard compared with a small stimulus in the origi

33 g2+ moved the tetramers into a predominantly checkerboard configuration, whereas the 4 mmol/L Mg2+ in

34 In a cancer context, these checkerboards correspond to genes that are markedly up-

35 control tasks (i.e., number judgment versus checkerboard detection) and experimental designs (i.e.,

36 the scaled dartboard display and an unscaled checkerboard display (check size of 50 minarc).

37 the neutral expectations, and OTUs exhibited checkerboard distributions among flies.

38 Oral samples were assayed by means of a checkerboard DNA probe assay.

39 Subgingival P. endodontalis was defined by checkerboard DNA-DNA hybridization analysis, and corresp

40 The checkerboard DNA-DNA hybridization assay was used to det

41 ified and amplified samples were analyzed by checkerboard DNA-DNA hybridization for levels and propor

42 riodontal pathogens were performed using the checkerboard DNA-DNA hybridization method.

43 35 microbial species were determined by the checkerboard DNA-DNA hybridization method.

44 ites in all participants and analyzed by the checkerboard DNA-DNA hybridization technique.

45 of this investigation was to combine MDA and checkerboard DNA-DNA hybridization to examine the microb

46 aque samples per patient were analyzed using checkerboard DNA-DNA hybridization.

47 Samples were analyzed using checkerboard DNA-DNA hybridization.

48 zed for levels of 40 bacterial species using checkerboard DNA-DNA hybridization.

49 0 subgingival bacteria were determined using checkerboard DNA-DNA hybridization.

50 s of 40 bacterial taxa were quantified using checkerboard DNA-DNA hybridization.

51 for the levels of 40 bacterial species using checkerboard DNA-DNA hybridization.

52 their content of 40 bacterial species using checkerboard DNA-DNA hybridization.

53 d with respect to 11 bacterial species using checkerboard DNA-DNA hybridizations, and serum immunoglo

54 severe chronic periodontitis, and for whom "checkerboard" DNA-DNA hybridization quantification of 8

55 e treated by oral gavage for 28 days using a checkerboard dosing format (0, 3.0, 6.0 and 10.0 CsA and

56 between periods of flickering or stationary checkerboards (each period lasted 14 s).

57 dies were used to detect bound antigens in a checkerboard format.

58 terized by using oligonucleotide probes in a checkerboard hybridization assay that identifies the seq

59 The reverse-capture checkerboard hybridization assay was used to assess leve

60 Checkerboard hybridization DNA analysis of subgingival p

61 gival plaque samples was evaluated using DNA checkerboard hybridization, and serum antibody to a batt

62 as 16S RNA gene sequence and reverse-capture checkerboard hybridization, for identification of the ba

63 for 11 known periodontal bacteria by DNA-DNA checkerboard hybridization.

64 The por type was determined by checkerboard hybridizations performed using oligonucleot

65 e probes to 5 VRs of each class were used in checkerboard hybridizations to type 282 clinical gonococ

66 scribe the development and validation of the checkerboard immunoblotting (CBIB) technique for the hig

67 We used checkerboard immunoblotting to assess serum IgG levels t

68 trix metalloproteinase 8 were measured using checkerboard immunoblotting, and the levels of 40 bacter

69 ere measured against the same bacteria using checkerboard immunoblotting.

70 a visual-search task and ignoring distractor checkerboards in the periphery.

71 ds in the auditory attention task and to dim checkerboards in the visual attention task.

72 nearest neighbor interactions and a six-site checkerboard lattice, which might be in reach of current

73 pologically non-trivial flat-band model on a checkerboard lattice.

74 al superconductors of spinless fermions in a checkerboard-lattice Chern-insulator model.

75 A finite-size checkerboard-lattice cylinder with a harmonic trap poten

76 (CO/OO) near T(CO) = 300 K and then develops checkerboard-like antiferromagnetic (AF) order below T(N

77 as selected, and a PCR-based reverse-capture checkerboard method was used for detection.

78 azole, or voriconazole) was performed by the checkerboard method.

79 A checkerboard microdilution method, performed according t

80 surface plasmon resonance (SPR) sensor in a checkerboard nanostructure on plastic substrates is pres

81 structure of CeMg(2)Si(2) (P4/mmm), exhibits checkerboard nets of corner-shared bicapped Au squares (

82 A-positive and -negative samples tested in a checkerboard pattern over 12 runs of 96 samples.

83 e polarization-dependent transmission in the checkerboard pattern produces optical isolation between

84 s were recorded with a 15' and 60' reversing checkerboard pattern, and the mfVEPs were elicited by a

85 For a 140micromx140microm checkerboard pattern, the dynamic range was approximatel

86 used to obtain 60 VEP responses to a scaled checkerboard pattern.

87 stimulation with a black and white reversing checkerboard pattern.

88 man visual cortex with an alternating radial checkerboard pattern.

89 low (Lc) and a high (Hc) Michelson contrast checkerboard pattern.

90 were incubated with resistant isolates in a checkerboard pattern.

91 exhibits Mott localization in the form of a checkerboard pattern.

92 resenting each eye with a contrast-reversing checkerboard pattern.

93 They exhibit a copper-oxygen bond-oriented "checkerboard" pattern, with four unit cell (4a0) periodi

94 am representation of sound such as localized checkerboard patterns and frequency-modulated excitatory

95 ud and soft speech sounds and bright and dim checkerboard patterns occurred every 800 to 1200 msec.

96 s genes and conditions, finding distinctive "checkerboard" patterns in matrices of gene expression da

97 ponse to simple but strong stimulation using checkerboard presentations.

98 The VEPs were evoked by checkerboard reversal stimulation before and after a mod

99 Whole cell synergy checkerboard screens were performed using the laboratory

100 s/no decision on the presence of a 'White X' checkerboard signal (1.5 degrees ) at one of two locatio

101 ometer-sized square-to-triangles, squares-to-checkerboards, smiles-to-neutral face, and zeros-to-ones

102 These models result in a checkerboard spatial pattern whereby adjacent cells expr

103 trial-to-trial stimulus noise added to the 9 checkerboard squares.

104 and visual cortical potentials to reversing checkerboard stimulation were recorded from 15 older con

105 block design paradigm of contrast reversing checkerboard stimuli delivered using an MRI-compatible v

106 d with pattern electroretinography (PERG) to checkerboard stimuli of different field sizes.

107 field were mapped using periodic flickering checkerboard stimuli that evoked a traveling wave of act

108 occipito-parietal cortices to high-contrast checkerboard stimuli.

109 pacing) while participants viewed flickering checkerboard stimuli.

110 were measured for a 24 degrees x 32 degrees checkerboard stimulus (0.56 cyc/deg, 90% contrast, 75 cd

111 rticipants observing an expanding flickering checkerboard stimulus of 30 degrees diameter.

112 The cVEP checkerboard stimulus subtended 21 degrees, had a mean l

113 visual cortex while the participant viewed a checkerboard stimulus.

114 clustering, is based on the observation that checkerboard structures in matrices of expression data c

115 ee to which the approach is able to identify checkerboard structures.

116 watched as a virtual actor looked towards a checkerboard that appeared in her visual field, confirmi

117 t combined a moving spiral with a stationary checkerboard, the response to looming motion declined.

118 uctures of increasing complexity: a periodic checkerboard tiling, an aperiodic Penrose tiling, and a

119 a multifrequency (4, 8, and 16 Hz) reversing-checkerboard visual stimulation paradigm.

120 -density VEPs evoked by a contrast reversing checkerboard were collected from 15 normal observers usi

121 The cVEP stimulus was a reversing checkerboard with checks of either 15 minutes or 60 minu