ライフサイエンスコーパス: strain difference

1 e absence of background noise did not negate strain differences.

2 are uniquely defining of type I and type II strain differences.

3 those differences were smaller than site and strain differences.

4 However, there were significant strain differences.

5 and 353 as the primary determinants of these strain differences.

6 l measures against S. japonicum is potential strain differences.

7 Distinct MRSA molecular strain differences also were seen between HAHO-MRSA (60%

8 This behavior is sensitive to strain differences and drugs.

9 Although many polygenic strain differences and spontaneous single gene mutants h

10 These strain differences and the existence of at least two ind

11 novel high throughput screen to detect known strain differences and to provide evidence of the abilit

12 on is not genetically controlled: We find no strain differences, and, within a single individual, the

13 h adult and 18 d pups, confirming that these strain differences are both robust and innate.

14 Possible underpinnings for the observed strain differences are discussed.

15 fidobacteria is strain-dependent, and strain-strain differences are important factors that influence

16 egulatory correlates to previously described strain differences at the EEG level and raise the possib

17 The experimental strain data showed notable strain differences between adjacent bones, but this effe

18 ies of contextual fear conditioning revealed strain differences between C57BL/6J (B6) and DBA/2J (D2)

19 The genetic basis for the phenotypic strain differences can be rapidly mapped by simply scree

20 To determine whether C. trachomatis strain differences contributed to this apparent conflict

21 These strain differences could be due to variation in response

22 To assess whether strain differences defined by ospC group are linked to i

23 ircadian clock gene expression parallel this strain difference described previously at the EEG level.

24 that susceptibility to IRI could result from strain differences due to genetic factors.

25 Significant between-strain differences existed.

26 There were no strain differences for lactoferrin; 10557 bound signific

27 Significantly less sIgA was bound at UC; strain differences for sIgA were inconsistent across sit

28 city caused by nutrient-limitation and inter-strain differences have been observed in many algal spec

29 molecules that might explain transmission of strain differences have yet been put forward.

30 ed no strain differences suggesting that the strain difference in acquisition was not due to cocaine

31 Moreover, there was a strain difference in fear conditioning: The C57BL/6J mic

32 als, we found an experiment-wise significant strain difference in GABA-Aalpha2 mRNA expression in the

33 nt as the primary genetic determinant of the strain difference in inclusion morphology.

34 human alcohol-related liver injury, and the strain difference in mouse MDB formation, we hypothesize

35 The strain difference in permeability was not correlated wit

36 In addition to the strain difference in sensitivity to IL lesions, LE rats

37 e 15, Rapop5, partly accounts for the murine strain difference in susceptibility to radiation-induced

38 These results indicate a rat strain difference in susceptibility to retinal neovascul

39 Here, we report a viral strain difference in the morphology of these inclusions:

40 A strain difference in the response of core ATPase activit

41 Alternatively, this strain difference in tumor spectra also may be related t

42 The strain difference in vascular hyperpermeability was corr

43 These strain differences in acquisition of cocaine self-admini

44 Until such strain differences in activity are thoroughly defined, t

45 Strain differences in adipokines and myocardial fatty ac

46 s (alleles) that contribute to individual or strain differences in aggression.

47 Our data demonstrate that strain differences in alcohol-induced liver injury and s

48 ting the SHR with methylphenidate eliminated strain differences in all 3 tasks.

49 with [125I]p-iodoclonidine revealed no inter-strain differences in alpha(2)-binding in control rats.

50 n disseminated candidiasis and that, despite strain differences in ALS gene expression previously not

51 ation session with i.v. saline minimized the strain differences in AMPH-induced behaviors except that

52 These strain differences in apomorphine sensitivity were not f

53 Strain differences in basal mRNA expression correlate wi

54 No strain differences in basal neurochemistry were apparent

55 unologic rejection phenomena, or preexisting strain differences in blood pressure.

56 e results confirm that there are significant strain differences in capacity to support the growth of

57 Strain differences in circulating maternal TGFbeta1 leve

58 Strain differences in costimulation blockade-induced hyp

59 Strain differences in DAT total protein and basal activi

60 Strain differences in dendritic Ca(2+) signaling were al

61 Here, we investigated whether strain differences in dopamine transporters (DATs) in do

62 design these differences were independent of strain differences in EtOH metabolism.

63 innervation densities and may explain major strain differences in glucose homeostasis.

64 gic and genetic mechanisms that underlie the strain differences in glutamate intake.

65 We have previously shown strain differences in heroin-induced conditioned place p

66 he hypothesis for the present study was that strain differences in HRRD susceptibility are due to all

67 y TST, and that this may partially relate to strain differences in immunogenicity.

68 The results of Experiment 2 demonstrate that strain differences in impulsivity are not likely to acco

69 s compared with FVB, mice contributes to the strain differences in insulin resistance and lipid metab

70 In mice, strain differences in IOP were detected.

71 ures, which we hypothesized to be related to strain differences in kainate's effects, rather than gen

72 Control experiments demonstrated that the strain differences in kidney damage could not be attribu

73 Strain differences in LGN volume correlate moderately we

74 and IgM), a result that further explains the strain differences in LM defenses.

75 , (iii) disruption of melanin by NaOCl, (iv) strain differences in melanin content after growth in L-

76 In regions where strain differences in monoamine levels were observed (th

77 he effects of gene manipulations relative to strain differences in mutant mice.

78 There were no strain differences in neural responses at 600 or 900 ms

79 BL/6 (kainate-resistant) mice, indicating no strain differences in neuronal vulnerability to seizure

80 To evaluate strain differences in NspA surface accessibility and sus

81 Given these strain differences in NspA surface accessibility, an rNs

82 e of prior immunity, repeated exposures, and strain differences in protective immunity to C. jejuni.

83 Whilst no obvious strain differences in protein levels of Bcl-2 or the cyc

84 diated sigma3 processing are responsible for strain differences in reovirus infection of macrophage-l

85 The ensemble model suggests that inter-strain differences in response to streptococcus pneumoni

86 enome hybridization with DNA arrays revealed strain differences in S. pneumoniae that could contribut

87 ,Gly-ol5]enkephalin (DAMGO), to test whether strain differences in sensitivity of the mu receptor con

88 Strain differences in sensitivity to dopamine agonist-in

89 AHR polymorphisms underlie mouse strain differences in sensitivity to HAHs and polynuclea

90 n concentrations compared with Hfe +/+ mice, strain differences in severity of iron accumulation were

91 mice and also dictate previously recognized strain differences in sialyloligosaccharide binding.

92 vels differ between strains, possibly due to strain differences in spontaneous activity.

93 formans culture supernatants, (ii) there are strain differences in supernatant protein profiles, (iii

94 Substantial strain differences in taste aversion and hypothermia wer

95 Strain differences in the effects of CRH and AST may be

96 These results demonstrate strain differences in the expression of specific mRNAs a

97 GRA15 is responsible for a large part of the strain differences in the induction of IL-12 secretion b

98 However, there were strain differences in the locomotor activity of SD, SHR,

99 tive of the present study was to investigate strain differences in the locomotor responses to MPD amo

100 lf-administration may be related to reported strain differences in the mesolimbic dopamine system.

101 However, little work has examined age and strain differences in the mouse olfactory system.

102 We also found strain differences in the mRNA levels of SSTR-2 and -4.

103 is of PPTRH 178-199 demonstrated significant strain differences in the paraventricular nucleus (PVN)

104 While there were no strain differences in the rate of task acquisition or st

105 ifferences in task performance or because of strain differences in the reaction to experimental distu

106 on of autoreactive T cells in vitro, despite strain differences in the regulation of cytokine/chemoki

107 nificantly blunted in DBA mice, showing that strain differences in the response to AA are tissue spec

108 Strain differences in the sensitivity to the PPI-disrupt

109 We reported strain differences in the sensitivity to the PPI-disrupt

110 e mORV mu2 protein as a determinant of viral strain differences in the transcriptase and nucleoside t

111 The strain-to-strain differences in transformation frequency were obse

112 for one pair of highly related B. turicatae strains, differences in GAG binding correlate with diffe

113 resumably colonized with different commensal strains, differences in nutrient availability may provid

114 early stages of prion disease in mice, mouse strain differences, lesions of the hippocampus and prefr

115 These results suggest that strain differences must be considered in experimental de

116 of immune suppression and the role of virus strain differences on the immune system are incompletely

117 hypothesis and suggest that the influence of strain differences on the interpretation of retinovascul

118 The robust strain differences permitted screening the strain means

119 of thymocytes undergoing apoptosis, but the strain difference persists.

120 The authors tested the hypothesis that this strain difference reflects brain function rather than pe

121 These strain differences serve as a useful model for the 2-fol

122 The diet and strain differences suggest a dietary lipid-gene interact

123 nous cocaine infusion (1.0 mg/kg), showed no strain differences suggesting that the strain difference

124 n all mouse strains, but there were dramatic strain differences that quantitatively varied 2.5-fold (

125 Because gene expression analysis showed few strain differences that were not immune-function related

126 This strain difference was due to overall low expression of a

127 The cause of this strain difference was perplexing.

128 tand the molecular basis responsible for the strain difference, we have measured the levels of pigmen

129 To understand the basis for these strain differences, we characterized features of adiposi

130 To elucidate neuronal correlates of these strain differences, we performed ex vivo analysis of glu

131 Point-wise significant strain differences were also observed in GABA-Aalpha2, G

132 No strain differences were found for DAT kinetic parameters

133 strains were tested, and previously reported strain differences were found in all phenotypes except e

134 Strain differences were found in both the sensitivity to

135 These strain differences were not because of differences in ci

136 No strain differences were noted between the actions of Ang

137 Strain differences were observed for activity, latency t

138 Strain differences were observed in avoidance learning,

139 Strain differences were, however, found, as the Dark Ago

140 ric pathogen, exhibits significant strain-to-strain differences which result in differences in pathog

141 Strain differences with regard to SR distribution were a