Ai Feedback
Exact(60)
While we did not find heroin dose-related changes in mRNA expression levels in C57 mice, we did observe dose-related differences in 129 mice.
In the present TLC analysis, although very little metabolism and degradation of [11C]AZT occurred in vivo in mice, we did observe three hydrophilic metabolites of [11C]AZT, two of which were observed in the bile (metabolite b and c, Fig. 6).
However, in the control mice, we did not find any PDX1+ proliferating cells (Fig. 3A).
In uninfected mice, we did not find differences in the B lymphocytes (Figure 2A and 2B, respectively).
In 13 week old Hexb−/−FcRγ+/+ and 15 week old Hexb−/−FcRγ−/− mice, we did not see this B cell expansion.
Because of the embryonic lethality of Smad5−/− mice, we did not further generate Smad cKO/cKO Smad5−/− mice so that we could study the postnatal phenotype in detail.
In hearts from fat-fed versus chow-fed human apoB-transgenic mice we did not identify this difference in GLUT4 and PFK mRNA expression (Fig. 4B).
In the current study in anesthetized mice, we did not see a difference in baseline heart-rate when comparing A1AR−/− mice to littermate controls.
In survival experiments using C3 deficient mice, we did not find a major role of the complement system for the survival after post-exposure immunization (Fig. 5C).
In contrast to the glucose intolerance we observed in male mTR−/−G4 mice, we did not identify baseline impaired glucose tolerance in female mTR−/−iG4.
While naïve wild-type (WT) mice had a higher percentage of CD44int/hi CD8+ T cells than uninfected IL-15 knock-out (KO) mice, we did not observe significant differences in CD44int/hi frequency between infected WT and KO mice.
Related(20)
ones we did
birds we did
studies we did
individuals we did
specimens we did
laugh we did
smile we did
observed we did
mice we explored
mice we analyzed
mice we investigated
mice we proceeded
mice we examined
mice we tested
mice we demonstrated
mice we identified
mice we chose
mice we measured
mice we made
mice we intercrossed
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