Suggestions(5)
Exact(6)
Three technical replicates of each biological replicate were analyzed in quantitative real-time PCR analysis.
Two biological replicates of each sample and three technical replicates per biological replicate were analyzed.
At least three biological replicates of each sample and three technical replicates of each biological replicate were analyzed for real-time PCR analysis.
To test overall reproducibility, data for each biological replicate were analyzed separately for eQTL including eQTL map position, KS p-value, and relative microarray intensity.
At least two biological replicates of each sample and three technical replicates of each biological replicate were analyzed for real-time PCR analysis.
Two independent biological replicates for each sample and three technical replicates of each biological replicate were analyzed in quantitative real-time PCR analysis.
Similar(54)
Each sample of each biological replicate was analyzed three times.
In order to estimate whether this sampling strategy was capable of sufficiently reducing noise from non-relevant biological variation, we prepared two independent pooled samples that were included as biological replicates, and each biological replicate was analyzed in two technical replicates using a looped experimental design (Fig 8).
Three biological replicates were analyzed.
Three biological replicates were analyzed for each cell types.
For the AR113Q males, only the original 3 biological replicates were analyzed.
More suggestions(15)
biological replicate were calculated
biological replicate were sliced
biological replicate were made
biological replica were analyzed
biological replicate were transferred
biological replicate were subjected
biological index were analyzed
biological replicate were mixed
biological replicate were labeled
biological replicate were given
biological activity were analyzed
biological replicate were amplified
biological replicate were homogenized
biological replicate were performed
biological replicate were averaged
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