Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(1)
Exact(1)
The colony counting was performed under a microscope in duplicate.
Similar(59)
Nr. 15510-027) at 40°C and four 80 μL aliquots were immediately pipetted onto each of two coated microscope slides (in duplicate per slide), covered with a 22 × 22 mm cover slip and then chilled on ice for 1 min to solidify the agarose.
Faecal samples were treated either by ether-sedimentation (Ritchie, 1948) or sugar-flotation (Sheather, 1923) preparation methods, and were examined with a binocular microscope (60 100× magnification), in duplicate, for detection and identification of eggs and cysts.
Sperm motility was assessed at 400× magnification on a microscope heating stage (37°C) in duplicate, and the average value was recorded.
Sperm percentages of A + B grades of motility, that is, progressive motility, were assessed at 400× magnification on a microscope heating stage (37°C) in duplicate, and concentration was measured using a Bürker-Türk chamber at phase contrast (400×).
The formed colonies were scored by calculating number of colonies in ten random views of 10× magnification in duplicate using an inverted microscope (Olympus CKX41) and photographed (Olympus DP12).
The motilities of human spermatozoa cells from random high magnification fields (100x) of the sample were determined in duplicate using atomic force microscope.
Cells were maintained in a 37°C tissue culture incubator and after 2 weeks (6 weeks for cells from xenografts) all colonies ≥20 cells were counted in duplicate or triplicate wells using an inverted light microscope.
Total cell number was determined by counting each sample in duplicate using a hemocytometer under an inverted phase contrast microscope (Olympus Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) using Trypan blue dye.
Total cell number was determined by counting each sample in duplicate using a hemocytometer under an inverted phase contrast microscope (Carl Zeiss) using trypan blue dye.
Six samples with contrasting PSDs were assessed in duplicate.
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