ライフサイエンスコーパス: amplification efficiency

1 A are investigated and controlled for higher amplification efficiency.

2 as an miRNA analysis method because of high amplification efficiency.

3 MS2) were included to ensure extraction and amplification efficiency.

4 alidated to ensure gene-specificity and high amplification efficiency.

5 er enzyme concentrations to achieve the same amplification efficiency.

6 ir product were performed in 23 min with 78% amplification efficiency.

7 NA or RNA amplification without decreases in amplification efficiency.

8 pite poor and non-uniform extraction and PCR amplification efficiencies.

9 of targeted DNA after 50 cycles with average amplification efficiency 1.34 per cycle, and demonstrate

10 ed or direct patient specimens, and enhanced amplification efficiency and assay sensitivity through t

11 uding cycle numbers and relative measures of amplification efficiency and curve shape.

12 action to conditions of arbitrarily variable amplification efficiency and initial population size.

13 that of the excess primer (TmX) affects both amplification efficiency and specificity during the expo

14 ntrol in the reaction mixture to monitor the amplification efficiency and the presence of inhibitors.

15 g which indicate that differences in initial amplification efficiency and the rate of decay of amplif

16 The analytical sensitivity, reproducibility, amplification efficiency, and dynamic range of the assay

17 e biases due to GC content, exon capture and amplification efficiency, and latent systemic artifacts.

18 high internal sequence similarity, identical amplification efficiencies are preserved throughout the

19 at has the same primer binding sites and PCR amplification efficiency as c-myc.

20 sruption of such structures may diminish the amplification efficiency, as we demonstrate for the case

21 tandard the use of DPCR in tandem with a PCR amplification efficiency assay provides a powerful appro

22 By analyzing the interplay of amplification efficiency, background, and speed of ampli

23 As this technique improves the balance of amplification efficiencies between GC-rich target sequen

24 number problematic because of variations in amplification efficiencies between the sequence targets

25 We have also improved the amplification efficiency by including the single-strand

26 From the fit parameters, the amplification efficiency can be calculated.

27 The amplification efficiency determined by analyzing seriall

28 fication efficiency and the rate of decay of amplification efficiency during the reaction can rapidly

29 recently proposed method for estimating qPCR amplification efficiency E analyzes fluorescence intensi

30 Cycle-to-cycle variability in the amplification efficiency E produces scale dispersion sim

31 estimating the quantification cycle (Cq) and amplification efficiency (E) for a large test data set (

32 estimating the quantification cycle (Cq) and amplification efficiency (E) from least-squares fits of

33 et volume uncertainty and variability in the amplification efficiency (E) likely account for most of

34 essential for quantitative prediction of DNA amplification efficiency for arbitrary sequences and ope

35 The reduced amplification efficiency for targets similar to HIV subt

36 By calculating the amplification efficiency from the samples under analysis

37 their real-time PCR limits of detection and amplification efficiencies, (ii) by determining their ab

38 arameters influencing DNA extraction and PCR amplification efficiencies in an attempt to standardize

39 The transistor signal amplification efficiency is 38.2 siemens per ampere, whi

40 It is shown that amplification efficiency is affected by dynamic processe

41 omass with high accuracy, particularly where amplification efficiency is high (median correlation up

42 ibitors, and more accurate quantitation when amplification efficiency is low, make dPCR the assay of

43 The amplification efficiency is moderate with high fidelity,

44 mismatch discrimination (8- to 20-fold), and amplification efficiency is reduced when T and especiall

45 te Carlo simulations, we show that a reduced amplification efficiency leads to broader threshold cycl

46 two polymerase enzymes while accounting for amplification efficiency, nonspecific background, and ti

47 ute quantification of transcripts is similar amplification efficiencies of all external standards and

48 We evaluated the amplification efficiencies of both PCR assays and also c

49 The amplification efficiencies of several polymerase chain r

50 eliminates the errors arising from different amplification efficiencies of the co-amplified sequences

51 MB-231 and MCF-7 cell lines, achieving a DNA amplification efficiency of 70% with methylation pattern

52 minimal inhibitory dilution of 1/640 and an amplification efficiency of 72.7%.

53 The PCR system exhibited remarkable amplification efficiency of 94.7%.

54 served a concentration-dependent decrease in amplification efficiency of a 4.3 kb mitochondrial (mt)D

55 We detected no change in amplification efficiency of a plasmid control containing

56 This protocol improves the amplification efficiency of antibody variable genes and

57 we apply a simple algorithm to calculate the amplification efficiency of every sample from its amplif

58 y of Taq pol and are useful in enhancing the amplification efficiency of low copy number targets by t

59 The signal amplification efficiency of LPHN-CHDC is demonstrated in

60 000:1, which could be attributed to the high amplification efficiency of Phi29, the high binding capa

61 The unprecedented amplification efficiency of PMCA leads to a several bill

62 The amplification efficiency of the PLP was 98.7% within a 0

63 of the real-time PCR limit of detection and amplification efficiency of the Riviere and Qvarnstrom a

64 n the effects of PCR cycle number and primer amplification efficiency on the results of diversity met

65 "quasar"), does not significantly reduce the amplification efficiency or sensitivity of RT-LAMP.

66 Rain most often results from a reduced amplification efficiency or template inaccessibility; ho

67 onventional signaling strategies in its high amplification efficiency, robustness, and biocompatibili

68 ibition also explains wrongfully derived PCR amplification efficiencies, sometimes more than 100%, wh

69 nistically explains the relationship between amplification efficiency, template accessibility, and ra

70 ur model, it is possible to determine if the amplification efficiency, template accessibility, or ano

71 extrinsic controls to monitor extraction and amplification efficiency (the bacteriophage MS2 and phoc

72 s of the target DNAs did affect the relative amplification efficiencies, the effect was limited and d

73 problems that encompass diverse topics from amplification efficiency to bioinformatics.

74 s and samples meet the assumption of similar amplification efficiencies underlying absolute quantific

75 The amplification efficiency was 80%, and the gel separation

76 E of DNA from a dilute cell lysate, the qPCR amplification efficiency was determined to be 100.3%, de

77 In commercial wines, the amplification efficiency was limited by the low amount o

78 ths, easier designing of probes with uniform amplification efficiency was possible.

79 ed; and while regional differences in global amplification efficiency were seen by using comparative

80 products from the reactions with the highest amplification efficiency were sequenced.Analogs allowing

81 The three convertides with the highest amplification efficiency were used to convert sequences

82 Because it does not rely on amplification efficiency, which can be affected by seque

83 Although C2CA provides a high amplification efficiency with a negligible increase of f

84 the mean extraction efficiency, rather than amplification efficiency, would better improve sensitivi