Suggestions(5)
Exact(5)
The H486R mutant showed less interaction with HA-CYLD than wild type optineurin (Figure 2C).
The hrk1Δ mutant showed less cell swelling in response to fludioxonil than the wild-type strain, although more cell swelling than the hog1Δ mutant.
Our IAI51 irp1- mutant showed less virulence on D. dictyostelium compared to the mutant IAI51 pCP1 and was then consistent with the closed relationship between iron and virulence.
In growth assays, ΔMosec22 mutant showed less resistance to CFW than the wild type as well as the reconstituted strains (Figure 7), suggesting that MoSec22 was involved in maintaining the integrity of the cell wall.
Also, compared to WT PEA15-expressing cells, those expressing the PEA15 S116A mutant showed less association of PEA15 with FADD highlighting the importance of Ser phosphorylation of PEA15 for its association with FADD in these cells, in keeping with previous reports [ 22, 36].
Similar(55)
Moreover, the D3R −/− and +/− mutants showed less and more rearing frequency than WT, respectively, during the entire test.
However, mutants showed less total internalized protein when compared with the wild-type form (Fig. 4B, C, and Fig. S4B Activated 10 min; E, Internalization 10 min), as expected since the amount of protein bound to the surface is also comparably reduced (Fig. 4B, C, Activated 3 min; E, Binding 3 min).
However, data correlation analysis indicated that a majority of proteins in vps4∆ mutants showed less pronounced changes during starvation.
Pull-down of the NHERF2 S303A mutant was similar to NHERF2 WT; whereas all the other single or double mutants showed less ezrin binding.
In C. parasitica, in contrast, deletion of cpg-1 caused enhanced growth on hypertonic media, whereas the respective constitutively activated mutants showed less tolerance to osmotic stress.
In general, the DnaJ mutants showed less oxidation of leaf total proteins, particularly the Rubisco protein, as a response to environmental light intensity changes as compared to WT.
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