Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(1)
Exact(1)
We compared gene expression analysis of the two most common subtypes of bladder cancer, UCa (n = 10) and SCCa (n = 9), with an additional comparison to normal urothelium from non-cancer patients (n = 8) using Affymetrix GeneChip Human genome arrays (Affymetrix, Santa Clara, CA).
Similar(59)
This analysis compared gene expression in zygotically null age-1 mutants (age-1 mg44)(m+z-)) age-1 mg44in age-1(mg44) animals carrying transgenes directing neuronally-restricted (CY251) or intestinally-restricted (CY262) age-1 expression (Fig. 1A).
Moreover, our analysis compared gene expression of PTCs with respect to the normal contralateral counterpart, which could have a transcript profile different from that of the normal thyroid tissue.
A transcriptomic analysis compared gene expression to identify the metabolic pathways induced by this environment, versus control cultures maintained in spent culture medium.
Our analysis compared gene expression in the hypothalamus of chicks that were fed or fasted for 24 or 48 h, as well as chicks that were fed following a 48 h fast.
In order to further resolve for differences based on PCA analysis we compared gene expression as follows.
Applying Affymetrix GeneChip Human Gene 1.0 ST Array and the mixed effects model for gene set analysis, we compared gene expression profiles between multiple sclerosis (MS) patients and healthy controls (HC).
The second analysis simultaneously compared gene expression levels of all five MYOC transgenes as homozygotes and as F1 gmr-Gal4/UAS-MYOC heterozygotes.
As a control for this analysis, we compared gene expression in our two different wild-type control strains.
Using microarray analysis, we compared gene expression profile of these different samples, before and after neurogenic differentiation.
We also compared gene expression levels determined by RQ-PCR analysis in fresh-frozen versus FFPE samples.
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