Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(5)
Exact(8)
The majority of primers had no more than one ambiguous base.
The majority of primers tested were based on unique sequences in the data set and amplified tri- or tetranucleotide repeats.
As a result, the majority of primers used in the multiplex for genotyping were also used for sequencing due to difficulty in finding effective sequencing primers.
It has been shown in this study that the sequence performance of the majority of primers was not affected by different storage conditions.
The great majority of primers were designed using the Codehop method [ 33, 34], which is based on an amino-acid alignment.
The majority of primers were 18 22 bp long with melting temperatures between 58 62°C and GC contents between 40 60%.
Similar(52)
The majority of primer sequences are available on the CDC website (http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/biotech/files/pcr-oligonucleotide-primers-March2010.pdf //www.cdc.gov/ncidod/biotech/files/pcr-oligonucleotide-primers-March2010.pdf //www.cdc.gov/ncidod/biotech/files/pcr-oligonucleotide-primers-March2010.pdf //www.cdc.gov/ncidod/biotech/files/pcr-oligonucleotide-primers-March2010.pdf
Our results suggest that the vast majority of primer sets designed for A. mexicanum / A. t. tigrinum EST orthologues can be used to amplify the corresponding sequence in a related A. tigrinum complex species, and for small DNA fragments in the range of 150 500 bp, approximately half are expected to have informative polymorphisms.
The majority of the primers used in the Gut Microbiotassay (21 out of the 23 primers included in Table 3) had and acceptable efficiency between 80-110%.
The majority of SNP primers (176) were designed to target Category 2 candidate SNPs and 16 primer pairs targeted Category 1 candidate SNPs (Additional File 2).
The majority of the primers (66.9%) were developed from tall fescue and rice and these two species showed amplification rate of 41.6% and 19.0% across the panel, respectively.
More suggestions(15)
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