Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(1)
An experimental group of 25 bees were injected with LPS.
Similar(59)
Sa-challenged bees were injected for a second time with ringer (Sa-R, n = 32), viable Pl (Sa- Pl, n = 27), viable Ec (Sa- Ec, n = 34), or viable Sa Saa- Sa, n = 38).
Ec-challenged bees were injected for a second time with ringer (Ec-R, n = 41), viable Pl (Ec- Pl, n = 28), viable Ec (Ec- Ec, n = 31), or viable Sa (Ec- Sa, n = 38).
Pl-challenged bees were injected for a second time with ringer (Pl-R, n = 71), viable Pl (Pl- Pl, n = 129), viable Ec (Pl- Ec, n = 26), or viable Sa (Pl- Sa, n = 47).
At day 8 after the challenge, bees were injected for a second time with either 2 μL of ringer saline solution, 2 μL of viable Pl bacteria (2 × 10 cells/mL), Ec (1 × 10 cells/mL), or Sa (1 × 10 cells/mL).
Final experimental groups were as follows: ringer-challenged bees were injected for a second time with ringer as a control (R-R, n = 83), viable Pl (R- Pl, n = 129), Ec (R- Ec, n = 51), or Sa (R- Sa, n = 47).
Obviously, this feedback is activated when bees were injected, irrespective whether they received bee ringer solution or E. coli.
To control for injection, another set of bees (n = 25) were injected with 5 μl of Ringer solution, a saline solution regularly used in insect physiology.
In both studies rodents were injected with BPA.
Control animals were injected with DMSO.
Rats were injected with intrathecal (i.t).
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com