The phrase "at the same assay" is not correct in English.
Did you mean "at the same assay time" or "at the same assay level"? If this is the case, you can use it when referring to simultaneous testing or evaluation in a scientific context.
Example: "The results were obtained at the same assay time to ensure consistency in the measurements."
Alternatives: "at the same test" or "during the same evaluation".
In contrast, WDR5, which makes direct contact with MLL1 through a "WIN" motif [19], [20], could not stimulate MLL1 activity at the same assay condition in vitro (Fig. 1A, lane 3 vs lane 2).
As apparent from Figure 5, the irreversible inhibition of the human AChE is far more sensitive to the chain lengths of the inhibitors than the corresponding inhibition of the greenbug enzyme; nearly two-fold more irreversible inhibition was observed with the insect enzyme than with the human enzyme at the same assay conditions.
All in vitro experiments were done at the same assay to avoid any in-house differences.
All kinetic experiments were determined at the same assay conditions, 37°C and 50 mM CPB at pH 6.0.
Paired samples (before and after treatment) were run at the same assay and handled the same way.
The pH-activity profiles of the wild-type and K165-γ-thialysine S. aureus NAL were obtained at 30 °C using the same assay but with an acetic acid/MES/Tris three-component buffering system covering the pH range 4 9 whilst maintaining a constant ionic strength.
This interval was based upon that used at other laboratories using the same assay, and then further validated by measuring serum cobalamin concentrations in at least 20 healthy cats over 1y age.
Samples from the same individual from the OGTT at baseline and at follow-up were analysed in the same assay.
Plasma from controls and treated animals was assayed in the same assay at three doses, and the assay was repeated 3 times.
Cells having at least three replication of the same assay type consistently showing EA, or combinations of three cells consistently showing EA, are highlighted in yellow in Figures 2 and 3.
A nonsignificant (P > 0.01, Kruskal−Wallis) effect of laboratory on cytokine recovery was used as an indicator of interlaboratory reproducibility when at least two laboratories ran the same assay (Table 3).
