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 and 353 as the primary determinants of these strain differences.
2 l measures against S. japonicum is potential strain differences.
3 e absence of background noise did not negate strain differences.
4 those differences were smaller than site and strain differences.
5 ailed deer to identify potential biochemical strain differences.
6 istent with prior studies, suggesting subtle strain differences.
7  are uniquely defining of type I and type II strain differences.
8 istent with prior studies, suggesting subtle strain differences.
9              However, there were significant strain differences.
10                      Distinct MRSA molecular strain differences also were seen between HAHO-MRSA (60%
11                This behavior is sensitive to strain differences and drugs.
12                      Although many polygenic strain differences and spontaneous single gene mutants h
13                                        These strain differences and the existence of at least two ind
14 novel high throughput screen to detect known strain differences and to provide evidence of the abilit
15 ntributors to host health, the importance of strain differences, and the activities of much of the ch
16 on is not genetically controlled: We find no strain differences, and, within a single individual, the
17 h adult and 18 d pups, confirming that these strain differences are both robust and innate.
18      Possible underpinnings for the observed strain differences are discussed.
19 fidobacteria is strain-dependent, and strain-strain differences are important factors that influence
20 egulatory correlates to previously described strain differences at the EEG level and raise the possib
21  The experimental strain data showed notable strain differences between adjacent bones, but this effe
22 ies of contextual fear conditioning revealed strain differences between C57BL/6J (B6) and DBA/2J (D2)
23 ted that our new algorithm can determine the strain differences between normal and diseased hearts.
24      Here, we report biochemical evidence of strain differences between the brain and lymph node from
25           In this study, we examined whether strain differences between the FVB and C57BL/6 mice in n
26  the trial data aims to investigate the LAIV strain differences by testing the hypothesis that preexi
27 crystal structures, that NS1 irrespective of strain differences can adopt an open conformation.
28         The genetic basis for the phenotypic strain differences can be rapidly mapped by simply scree
29          To determine whether C. trachomatis strain differences contributed to this apparent conflict
30                                        These strain differences could be due to variation in response
31                              Since potential strain differences could exist in A1 organization betwee
32 rence yielded the circumferential transmural strain difference (cTSD).
33 ardial strain and circumferential transmural strain difference (cTSD; the difference between epicardi
34                            To assess whether strain differences defined by ospC group are linked to i
35 ircadian clock gene expression parallel this strain difference described previously at the EEG level.
36 that susceptibility to IRI could result from strain differences due to genetic factors.
37                          Significant between-strain differences existed.
38                                There were no strain differences for lactoferrin; 10557 bound signific
39     Significantly less sIgA was bound at UC; strain differences for sIgA were inconsistent across sit
40            We also found significant sex and strain differences for these rhythms.
41                          The implications of strain differences for tuberculosis protection and overa
42 city caused by nutrient-limitation and inter-strain differences have been observed in many algal spec
43 molecules that might explain transmission of strain differences have yet been put forward.
44 ed no strain differences suggesting that the strain difference in acquisition was not due to cocaine
45                        Moreover, there was a strain difference in fear conditioning: The C57BL/6J mic
46 als, we found an experiment-wise significant strain difference in GABA-Aalpha2 mRNA expression in the
47 nt as the primary genetic determinant of the strain difference in inclusion morphology.
48  human alcohol-related liver injury, and the strain difference in mouse MDB formation, we hypothesize
49                                          The strain difference in permeability was not correlated wit
50                           In addition to the strain difference in sensitivity to IL lesions, LE rats
51 e 15, Rapop5, partly accounts for the murine strain difference in susceptibility to radiation-induced
52                 These results indicate a rat strain difference in susceptibility to retinal neovascul
53                      Here, we report a viral strain difference in the morphology of these inclusions:
54                                            A strain difference in the response of core ATPase activit
55                          Alternatively, this strain difference in tumor spectra also may be related t
56                                          The strain difference in vascular hyperpermeability was corr
57                                        These strain differences in acquisition of cocaine self-admini
58                                   Until such strain differences in activity are thoroughly defined, t
59                                              Strain differences in adipokines and myocardial fatty ac
60 s (alleles) that contribute to individual or strain differences in aggression.
61                    Our data demonstrate that strain differences in alcohol-induced liver injury and s
62 ting the SHR with methylphenidate eliminated strain differences in all 3 tasks.
63 with [125I]p-iodoclonidine revealed no inter-strain differences in alpha(2)-binding in control rats.
64 n disseminated candidiasis and that, despite strain differences in ALS gene expression previously not
65 ation session with i.v. saline minimized the strain differences in AMPH-induced behaviors except that
66                                        These strain differences in apomorphine sensitivity were not f
67                                              Strain differences in basal mRNA expression correlate wi
68                                           No strain differences in basal neurochemistry were apparent
69 unologic rejection phenomena, or preexisting strain differences in blood pressure.
70 e results confirm that there are significant strain differences in capacity to support the growth of
71                                              Strain differences in circulating maternal TGFbeta1 leve
72                                              Strain differences in costimulation blockade-induced hyp
73                                              Strain differences in DAT total protein and basal activi
74                                              Strain differences in dendritic Ca(2+) signaling were al
75                Here, we investigated whether strain differences in dopamine transporters (DATs) in do
76                               We demonstrate strain differences in early susceptibility to the virus
77 design these differences were independent of strain differences in EtOH metabolism.
78 s highlighting the importance of considering strain differences in experimental design and result int
79  moieties required for CHIKV binding, define strain differences in GAG engagement, and provide furthe
80  innervation densities and may explain major strain differences in glucose homeostasis.
81 gic and genetic mechanisms that underlie the strain differences in glutamate intake.
82                             Despite distinct strain differences in gut microbiota composition, diet h
83                     We have previously shown strain differences in heroin-induced conditioned place p
84 he hypothesis for the present study was that strain differences in HRRD susceptibility are due to all
85 y TST, and that this may partially relate to strain differences in immunogenicity.
86 The results of Experiment 2 demonstrate that strain differences in impulsivity are not likely to acco
87 s compared with FVB, mice contributes to the strain differences in insulin resistance and lipid metab
88                                     In mice, strain differences in IOP were detected.
89 ures, which we hypothesized to be related to strain differences in kainate's effects, rather than gen
90    Control experiments demonstrated that the strain differences in kidney damage could not be attribu
91                                              Strain differences in LGN volume correlate moderately we
92 and IgM), a result that further explains the strain differences in LM defenses.
93 , (iii) disruption of melanin by NaOCl, (iv) strain differences in melanin content after growth in L-
94                             In regions where strain differences in monoamine levels were observed (th
95 he effects of gene manipulations relative to strain differences in mutant mice.
96                                There were no strain differences in neural responses at 600 or 900 ms
97 airment in gap detection are correlated with strain differences in neuroinflammatory responses.
98 BL/6 (kainate-resistant) mice, indicating no strain differences in neuronal vulnerability to seizure
99 es and loss of PV+ neurons may contribute to strain differences in noise-induced impairment in gap de
100                                  To evaluate strain differences in NspA surface accessibility and sus
101                                  Given these strain differences in NspA surface accessibility, an rNs
102   These findings provide novel data on mouse strain differences in pattern separation and support pre
103       Here, we exploited robust inbred mouse strain differences in Pavlovian fear extinction to uncov
104 e of prior immunity, repeated exposures, and strain differences in protective immunity to C. jejuni.
105                            Whilst no obvious strain differences in protein levels of Bcl-2 or the cyc
106 diated sigma3 processing are responsible for strain differences in reovirus infection of macrophage-l
107       The ensemble model suggests that inter-strain differences in response to streptococcus pneumoni
108 enome hybridization with DNA arrays revealed strain differences in S. pneumoniae that could contribut
109 ,Gly-ol5]enkephalin (DAMGO), to test whether strain differences in sensitivity of the mu receptor con
110                                              Strain differences in sensitivity to dopamine agonist-in
111             AHR polymorphisms underlie mouse strain differences in sensitivity to HAHs and polynuclea
112 n concentrations compared with Hfe +/+ mice, strain differences in severity of iron accumulation were
113  mice and also dictate previously recognized strain differences in sialyloligosaccharide binding.
114                 This demonstrates that HSV-1 strain differences in specific characteristics of infect
115 vels differ between strains, possibly due to strain differences in spontaneous activity.
116 formans culture supernatants, (ii) there are strain differences in supernatant protein profiles, (iii
117                                   Toxoplasma strain differences in susceptibility to human IFNgamma e
118                                  Substantial strain differences in taste aversion and hypothermia wer
119                                              Strain differences in the effects of CRH and AST may be
120                    These results demonstrate strain differences in the expression of specific mRNAs a
121 GRA15 is responsible for a large part of the strain differences in the induction of IL-12 secretion b
122                          However, there were strain differences in the locomotor activity of SD, SHR,
123 tive of the present study was to investigate strain differences in the locomotor responses to MPD amo
124 lf-administration may be related to reported strain differences in the mesolimbic dopamine system.
125    However, little work has examined age and strain differences in the mouse olfactory system.
126                                We also found strain differences in the mRNA levels of SSTR-2 and -4.
127 is of PPTRH 178-199 demonstrated significant strain differences in the paraventricular nucleus (PVN)
128                          While there were no strain differences in the rate of task acquisition or st
129 ifferences in task performance or because of strain differences in the reaction to experimental distu
130 on of autoreactive T cells in vitro, despite strain differences in the regulation of cytokine/chemoki
131 nificantly blunted in DBA mice, showing that strain differences in the response to AA are tissue spec
132                                  We reported strain differences in the sensitivity to the PPI-disrupt
133                                              Strain differences in the sensitivity to the PPI-disrupt
134 e mORV mu2 protein as a determinant of viral strain differences in the transcriptase and nucleoside t
135                                The strain-to-strain differences in transformation frequency were obse
136 our findings highlight significant strain-to-strain differences in virtually all photosynthetic param
137  for one pair of highly related B. turicatae strains, differences in GAG binding correlate with diffe
138 resumably colonized with different commensal strains, differences in nutrient availability may provid
139 e measures between assay strains and vaccine strains: difference in year of isolation (temporal), p-E
140 early stages of prion disease in mice, mouse strain differences, lesions of the hippocampus and prefr
141                   These results suggest that strain differences must be considered in experimental de
142 ing the efficiency, inter-subject, and inter-strain differences of complement opsonization in preclin
143  of immune suppression and the role of virus strain differences on the immune system are incompletely
144 hypothesis and suggest that the influence of strain differences on the interpretation of retinovascul
145                                   The robust strain differences permitted screening the strain means
146  of thymocytes undergoing apoptosis, but the strain difference persists.
147  The authors tested the hypothesis that this strain difference reflects brain function rather than pe
148                                        These strain differences serve as a useful model for the 2-fol
149                                 The diet and strain differences suggest a dietary lipid-gene interact
150 nous cocaine infusion (1.0 mg/kg), showed no strain differences suggesting that the strain difference
151 ation in opiate lethality is associated with strain differences, suggesting that sensitivity to OIRD
152 n all mouse strains, but there were dramatic strain differences that quantitatively varied 2.5-fold (
153  Because gene expression analysis showed few strain differences that were not immune-function related
154                               We found these strain differences to be resistant to developmental cros
155                                         This strain difference was due to overall low expression of a
156                            The cause of this strain difference was perplexing.
157  To identify genetic loci that underlie this strain difference, we constructed an F2 intercross betwe
158 tand the molecular basis responsible for the strain difference, we have measured the levels of pigmen
159            To understand the basis for these strain differences, we characterized features of adiposi
160    To elucidate neuronal correlates of these strain differences, we performed ex vivo analysis of glu
161                                          The strain differences were age independent.
162                       Point-wise significant strain differences were also observed in GABA-Aalpha2, G
163 s a biomarker of host NO, and M tuberculosis strain differences were determined by spoligotyping.
164                                           No strain differences were found for DAT kinetic parameters
165 strains were tested, and previously reported strain differences were found in all phenotypes except e
166                                              Strain differences were found in both the sensitivity to
167  and plant protein diets was assessed and no strain differences were found.
168                                        These strain differences were not because of differences in ci
169                                           No strain differences were noted between the actions of Ang
170                                              Strain differences were observed for activity, latency t
171                                              Strain differences were observed in avoidance learning,
172                                              Strain differences were, however, found, as the Dark Ago
173 ric pathogen, exhibits significant strain-to-strain differences which result in differences in pathog
174                                              Strain differences with regard to SR distribution were a

 
Page Top