Exact(5)
The most numerous type (1 10 or more per cell) were pleomorphic, typically ∼200 nm diameter, and occurred in clusters sometimes configured as a "V" in predivisional cells (Figure 2, 4, 5, 6, 10).
This contrasts with a recent SAGE study of P30 mouse brain, where the number of matched GenBank transcripts with copy number five or more per cell was 4,161 [17], but those data lacked the allele-specific identification.
The Her-2/neu proto-oncogene was considered to be amplified if the copy number of the gene was six or more per cell (Tanner et al, 2001).
However, miRNA copy numbers in the hundreds or more per cell may be helpful but not always necessary to achieve some measure of canonical target silencing by a targeting miRNA.
Despite individual variabilities, the overall results support that most miRNAs cloned into HIV-1 Nef are expressed on the order of 102 copies or more per cell, with the exception of miR211 which is expressed at a considerably higher level.
Similar(55)
TDP-43Q331K and TDP-43M337V aggregate more rapidly than TDP-43WT in vitro and are more toxic and form more aggregates per cell when overexpressed in yeast as compared with TDP-43WT (Johnson et al., 2009).
Whilst DC were more efficient presenters on a per cell basis than unfractionated splenocytes, B cells were very poor presenters.
For example it is known that Arabidopsis Aba mutants – deficient in epoxy-carotenoids – have significantly more grana stacks per chloroplast and more chloroplasts per cell but reduced thylakoid stacking in comparison with wild Arabidopsis plants [ 16].
These data suggest that while macrophage-like cells (CD11c−CD11b+) are more frequently infected, DC-like cells (CD11c+), when infected, contain more bacteria per cell.
In contrast, compared with wild-type, gα8 -, gα9 -, and gβ - cells had more mass per cell, and gα9 - and gβ - cells had more protein per cell (Table 2).
In comparison, all cells expressing control miRNA had 6 or more macropinosomes per cell and > 40% of cells had 16 or more macropinosomes per cell (Table 2).
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