The phrase "amount of nicks" is not correct in standard written English.
The word "amount" is typically used with uncountable nouns, while "nicks" is a countable noun, so "number of nicks" would be more appropriate.
Example: "The number of nicks on the surface of the table indicates how much wear it has endured over the years."
Alternatives: "count of nicks" or "total nicks".
Moreover, we observed that the amount of nicked Vβ 23RSS rose from undetected, for Vβ-Jβ substrates, to ∼2 8% for Vβ-Dβ substrates.
In contrast, binding to a DNA carrying a SSB did not enhance sumoylation, and due to the much higher affinity of F2 for damaged versus undamaged DNA, small amounts of nicks effectively inhibited sumoylation at K203 even in the presence of a large excess of intact DNA.
These mutational spectra and their dinucleotide sequence contexts resemble what would result from repair of a mixture of top and bottom SSBs, and are thus consistent with that expected from repairing trace amount of random nicks on both strands.
Strikingly, when testing Dβ1-Jβ substrates, we detected large amounts of nicked products at the 23RSS while nicks at the 12RSS were either not detected (3'Dβ1-Jβ1.1 3'Dβ1-Jβ1.1or quite low (∼1.5% for 3'Dβ1-Jβ2.5 substrates).
However, Dβ1 and Dβ2 23RSS yielded different amount of single strand nicks, respectively ∼30 % and 4 of input material (Figure 3, gels 9 to 11), implying that the Dβ1 23RSS surpasses the Dβ2 ortholog as a nicking target (hence PC nucleating site) in vitro.
The oligocapture assay appears to be not sensitive enough to detect Vβ or Jβ nicks, mainly two explanations can be considered, either the amount of Vβ or Jβ RSS nicks is underneath the detection threshold or, as discussed below, these nicks exist only transiently.
However, it makes a big difference to the amount of cleavage opposite the nick in oligonucleotide 7 (Figure 1C, compare lanes e and g).
In the presence of nicks and breaks, PARP1 polymerizes extensive amounts of PAR chains onto histone and other proteins, including itself, and is, in essence, its own best target.
We postulate that inter-sample variability is due to the amount and random distribution of nicking within a DNA sample which acts to separate these difficult to denature sequences from other DNA, and that highly intact DNAs will suffer the most.
It wasn't so much the amount of the money that the gang nicked (about £41m in 2013 money, or as Evans realises after the event – "too much"), but the audacity and complexity of the plan.
