戻る
「早戻しボタン」を押すと検索画面に戻ります。 [閉じる]

コーパス検索結果 (１語後でソート)

通し番号をクリックするとPubMedの該当ページを表示します
1 logous subtypes was always present (4 to 33% cross-contamination).
2 atures such as detection of batch effect and cross contamination.
3 thymidine triphosphate to reduce the risk of cross contamination.
4 imeric at the ethylthio position without any cross contamination.
5 ure optimal antimicrobial coverage and avoid cross-contamination.
6 e simplicity and minimize the risk of sample cross-contamination.
7 e workers (HCWs) from pathogens and prevents cross-contamination.
8 ells is challenging owing to degradation and cross-contamination.
9 od contact surfaces helps to detect allergen cross-contamination.
10  chlorine concentrations to prevent pathogen cross-contamination.
11 as well as increased sensitivity and reduced cross-contamination.
12 ss and introducing potential risks of sample cross-contamination.
13 m inspired by a mechanistic model of barcode cross-contamination.
14 al explosive odors through training material cross-contamination.
15 scope of detection, lengthy protocols and/or cross-contamination.
16 pability, coculture ability, and low risk of cross-contamination.
17 , are ideally discarded after use to prevent cross-contamination.
18 utions and an apparatus and a lack of sample cross-contamination.
19 pient to confine the droplets and to prevent cross-contamination.
20 CD patients may simply be reacting to gluten cross-contamination.
21 ginating laboratory and probably resulted in cross-contamination.
22 assays but are prone to false positives from cross-contamination.
23  for two proteins in a single sample without cross-contamination.
24 the same channel, demonstrating less than 1% cross-contamination.
25  have wrestled with concerns about planetary cross-contamination.
26  screening against multiple antigens without cross-contamination.
27 h NO2- and NO3- with little or no measurable cross-contamination.
28 st at high density to a surface with minimal cross-contamination.
29  and fresh-cut produce to minimize microbial cross-contamination.
30 obacterium avium complex (1 case), suspected cross-contamination (1 case), suspected specimen mislabe
31 ation, pH, etc.) can be finely tuned without cross-contamination, allowing the screening of a huge nu
32 port canine training in the field, detecting cross-contamination among training materials, and develo
33 he theoretical risks of cross-reactivity and cross-contamination among wheat, barley, and rye protein
34  genome coverage histograms, and can perform cross-contamination analysis for specimens prepared in s
35 ally closed valves are advantageous to avoid cross contamination and leaking.
36        These scRNA-seq resources are free of cross-contamination and are uniquely valuable for advanc
37 tion testing, which is to detect significant cross-contamination and cell line misidentification.
38                             The reduction of cross-contamination and greater range of injection ratio
39 ofluidic channel after a single use to avoid cross-contamination and keeps the expensive IDT device r
40 avoured by industry, owing to its high cost, cross-contamination and potential issues of process cont
41 amples can be disproportionately impacted by cross-contamination and practices suitable for handling
42 this assay reduces the possibility of sample cross-contamination and requires less hands-on time than
43 the time to recycle NMR tubes while avoiding cross-contamination and tube damage.
44 e for the food industry because of potential cross-contamination and undeclared ingredients because o
45 ple agglutination assays in parallel without cross-contamination and using only microliter volumes of
46 sulting process is inexpensive, resistant to cross-contamination, and amenable to robotic processing.
47 epth of coverage, ease of operation, minimal cross-contamination, and efficient use of samples.
48  384-well devices were found to be free from cross-contamination, and end point fluorescence detectio
49 he microFACS provides higher sensitivity, no cross-contamination, and lower cost.
50 cting a surface is fundamental in preventing cross-contamination, and the spreading of germs and harm
51 n--both intentionally and through widespread cross-contamination--and for the past 60 years it has se
52 ling technique, while sample evaporation and cross-contamination are effectively eliminated.
53 ctious agents and an emphasis on eliminating cross-contamination are needed for parents and care-take
54      Here, we review how contaminant DNA and cross-contamination arise within microbiome studies and
55 hondrial fractions were obtained with little cross-contamination, as determined by Northern analysis
56 e tested 14 pure samples and simulated their cross-contamination at different percentages (2%, 5%, 10
57              There was no evidence of sample cross-contamination based on phylogenetic analysis of HI
58 howed reliable operation with no significant cross contamination between closely spaced channels.
59 aspirated under program control with minimal cross contamination between layers.
60 ng with the results of experiments examining cross contamination between wells.
61 ed in open-barred cages raise concerns about cross-contamination between animals, and accidental expo
62                                              Cross-contamination between cell lines is a longstanding
63 s of reprocessing revealed opportunities for cross-contamination between devices through splashing fr
64 was used, which precludes the possibility of cross-contamination between donor-acceptor vesicles or t
65 her SNR of fluorescent signals and decreased cross-contamination between neurons.
66  as a result of either amplicon carryover of cross-contamination between patient samples.
67             Additionally, little evidence of cross-contamination between the IM and OM was evident by
68 sion data using different isotopes with less cross-contamination between transmission and emission da
69 tering the trap, thereby preventing unwanted cross contamination by other nearby droplets.
70 e cost for air/water purification and avoids cross-contamination by eliminating the release of heavy
71  correction, we show extremely low levels of cross-contamination by tracking source-specific SNVs.
72 lly, scientific misrepresentation because of cross-contamination can be largely eliminated.
73 ents were likely the result of low-level DNA cross contamination caused by frequent specimen handling
74     The aims of this study was to assess the cross-contamination caused by lard concentration of 0.5-
75 emplate in the RealTime assay, but potential cross-contamination could be mitigated by treatment with
76                                              Cross-contamination could have occurred in 28 of 93 (30%
77 sent approach include reduced risk of sample cross-contamination, decreased analysis time, and greate
78 iding methods for STR profile comparison and cross-contamination detection.
79 em that can occur when information regarding cross-contamination does not reach individual researcher
80 r cutting system that effectively eliminated cross-contamination during DBS processing.
81  to reduce the impact of contaminant DNA and cross-contamination during microbiome research.
82  cell lines and provided evidence suggesting cross-contamination during sequencing.
83 eted HTS is the risk of specimen-to-specimen cross-contamination during the library preparation step
84 athogenic sequences in clinical samples, but cross-contamination during the processing of the samples
85 , prisons, and public houses, and laboratory cross-contamination events and unusual clinical presenta
86               It also effectively identified cross-contamination events in real-world food samples.
87 lines strategies to reduce contamination and cross-contamination, focusing on marker gene and metagen
88 surfaces also represent potential sources of cross-contamination for Co, Ni, Cu, and Pb.
89         The device also allows for automated cross-contamination-free recovery of reaction products f
90 are-associated infections, which result from cross-contamination from surfaces and equipment.
91                                Incidences of cross-contamination >80 umol/mol (i.e. >53% of the treat
92  of raw fruits and vegetables, prevention of cross contamination in the kitchen, and measures that de
93 bute to the spread of airborne pathogens and cross-contamination in indoor environments.
94                     We evaluate the level of cross-contamination in our platform by both tracking flu
95  reduce enriched gas volume demand and avoid cross-contamination in the greenhouse, the gas was suppl
96 ibility that detectable fVIII mRNA is due to cross-contamination in the hepatocyte or LSEC preparatio
97   Exposure to these pathogens may be through cross-contamination in the home or the environment.
98  multiple lines of evidence suggest possible cross-contamination in these samples, which were process
99 rmacy practices that could have led to blood cross-contamination included reuse of needles and syring
100 t within the FPEs can result in food product cross-contamination, including vulnerable products such
101 der many real-world conditions where barcode cross-contamination is an issue.
102 ave excellent performance overall, low-level cross-contamination is identified in a small proportion
103                                       Sample cross-contamination is not a problem using this polymer-
104                              Accidental milk cross-contamination is one of the most common causes for
105 tal presence of gluten (Glu), resulting from cross-contamination, is imperative in different industri
106 les: rapid time-to-answer; low potential for cross contamination; minimal sample waste; all within a
107 ble disposable materials, eliminating sample cross contamination, minimizing complex handling, and ke
108                The results also suggest that cross-contamination occurs between patients and HCWs and
109              With or without corrections for cross-contamination of 123I into the 99mTc window, stria
110 rdrop molecular transport which leads to the cross-contamination of droplet contents.
111                   Biofilms are implicated in cross-contamination of food products, biofouling and var
112  collector photoreactor to assess subsequent cross-contamination of lettuce and soil by contaminants
113 ational anthrax through the postal system by cross-contamination of mail.
114  we were unable to demonstrate any carryover cross-contamination of negative samples.
115                                          The cross-contamination of non-target feeds with coccidiosta
116 en blender which was the probable source for cross-contamination of other food items.
117  diminish contamination of meat products and cross-contamination of produce crops because of cattle s
118                                              Cross-contamination of purified natural Ara h 1, 2, 3, a
119 O carriage, inadequate terminal cleaning, or cross-contamination of room surfaces via healthcare pers
120 nation, which appeared to result mainly from cross-contamination of specimens during RNA extraction.
121 a wide range of g-force and time conditions, cross-contamination of the DC pellet and supernatant wit
122 of preformed plugs of reagent, which reduces cross-contamination of the plugs, eliminates formation o
123 long with a cell's native mRNA and result in cross-contamination of transcripts between different cel
124 ables grown closely in the same facility, is cross-contamination of zoonotic bacterial pathogens espe
125 e drug exposure across cell cultures without cross-contamination opens new avenues for drug testing,
126              An intermediate group suggested cross-contamination or transitional farming practices.
127                       Despite this potential cross-contamination, our data indicate that we have dete
128   The closed real-time RT-PCR system avoided cross-contamination possible with RT-PCR and the excessi
129 e outline simple measures to detect or avoid cross-contamination, present a framework for cell line a
130 els below the limit of detection, suggesting cross-contamination rather than adulteration.
131 9 pandemic has generated many concerns about cross-contamination risks, particularly in hospital sett
132 ctured by Copan, Inc., in which we evaluated cross-contamination, the accuracy of plating, and the qu
133 in the skull and adjacent cortex showed some cross-contamination, the concentration of radioactivity
134 ful stool pathogens biocontamination, sample cross-contamination using techniques such as gravimetry
135  applications of oligos, the impact of oligo cross-contamination varies greatly depending on the fiel
136 ships among power, within-cluster structure, cross-contamination via between-cluster mixing, and infe
137                                       Signal cross-contamination was approximately 0.2% between indiv
138 y compared to standard sampling and specimen cross-contamination was below the detection limit of the
139                               The absence of cross-contamination was demonstrated by plating a total
140                                           No cross-contamination was detected in a challenge experime
141                    In our malaria DBS assay, cross-contamination was encountered despite cleaning tec
142                                      Peptide cross-contamination was excluded.
143 showed that the rate of specimen-to-specimen cross-contamination was highly significant in HTS.
144 ing, the system was easy to implement and no cross-contamination was observed among samples.
145                                           No cross-contamination was observed on an alternating posit
146                                           No cross-contamination was observed.
147 arryover and 1 s per sample, accepting minor cross contamination, was achieved using multiplexed solv
148 ard waste production, and the possibility of cross-contamination, we explore the possibility of bioli
149 plasmic RNA from a single cell type, free of cross-contamination, we studied the oocyte of the frog X
150 antimicrobial therapy and theoretic risk for cross-contamination were evaluated.
151  also efficiently detect contaminant DNA and cross-contamination, which can confound the interpretati
152                                   To prevent cross-contamination while keeping the solution in the ne
153                      ACR exhibited the least cross contamination with other PM domains or intracellul
154 If not properly recognized and managed, this cross-contamination with exogenous signal can lead to in
155                                     Instead, cross-contamination with small quantities was shown to b
156 likelihood of misidentification and possible cross-contamination with this laboratory neotype, it is
157 ger EoE as a result of cross-reaction and/or cross-contamination with wheat.
158 torage was found to be a potential source of cross contamination, with almost half of firefighters (4
159  operational feasibility in detecting gluten cross-contaminations within the food processing industry

 
Page Top