Ai Feedback
Exact(6)
Genomic DNA from mouse tail biopsies was extracted by ethanol precipitation after digestion in digestion buffer (50 mM Tris-HCl, pH 8, 100 mM EDTA, 100 mM NaCl, 1% SDS) with 500 µg Proteinase K Roche Applied Sciencee, Indianapolis, IN, USA) overnight at 55°C and resuspended in 100 µl of 0.1X SSC buffer.
Mouse tail biopsies were genotyped by PCR (primers 5′-CCACAGTCTGAGGACCGAGT-3′ and 5′ GGTCTTGGTCTGGATGCTCT-3′).
Genotyping was performed by PCR with genomic DNA isolated from mouse tail biopsies using primers for the Ncad k.i.i
For identification of genotype, DNA was extracted from mouse tail biopsies and analyzed by PCR as previously described [ 12].
Routine genotyping of DNA isolated from mouse tail biopsies was performed by PCR using the primers previously reported (Oh et al., 2000).
Presence of Hunk + and Hunk- alleles was confirmed by PCR with primers MKK (5′-tagtctggttggcatcaccg-3′), MK1A (5′-cagaatccagctagacctaacagtg-3′) and neoB on templates of genomic DNA isolated from mouse tail biopsies.
Similar(54)
Blood was collected from mouse tail biopsy with 10 mM EDTA as an anticoagulant.
WT or GPR39 KO littermates were used after genotyping using PCR of DNA isolated from mouse tail biopsy samples.
Overnight digestion of mouse tail biopsy samples (Workman et al, 1998) in STE buffer (0.1 NaCl, 0.05 Tris pH 8.0, 1 m EDTA, and 1% SDS) containing 5 mg ml−1 fungal proteinase K (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA), followed by phenol/chloroform extraction and ethanol precipitation yielded genomic DNA subsequently used in genotyping of all mice utilised in this study.
For the identification of genotype, DNA from mouse tail biopsy was extracted by digesting tissue (0.6 cm length) in 600 μl of TNES buffer (50 m m Tris base, pH 7.5; 400 m m NaCl; 100 m m EDTA, pH 8.0; 0.5% SDS) with 18 μl of Proteinase K at 20 mg/ml.
To genotype mice, tail biopsies from 3 week old mice were digested overnight at 55°C in Direct PCR Tail lysis buffer (Qiagen) and proteinase K (Qiagen).
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