Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(1)
Exact(2)
Eight NOSE cell samples were acquired from patients during surgery for benign gynecological disease at either the Tri-Service General HospIndiana Indiana University, USA.
qPCR analysis of 78 primary ovarian carcinomas and 14 NOSE cell brushings determined that CCBE1 was significantly down-regulated in ovarian cancers of all histological subtypes as compared with NOSE (serous, mucinous, clear cell P<0.001; endometrioid P<0.05; Figure 1C).
Similar(58)
Primary normal ovarian surface epithelial (NOSE) cells were established according to the method described in previous reports [ 12].
Interestingly, we found CLDN3 to be repressed in NOSE cells and tissues, despite a lack of promoter DNA methylation.
Moreover, the SLP-2 protein was highly expressed in the epithelial ovarian cancer cell lines and only weakly expressed in the NOSE cells (Fig. 1b).
The mRNA expression of SLP-2 was at least 4-fold higher in epithelial ovarian cancer cell lines than in the NOSE cells (Fig. 1a).
In this study we have shown for the first time significant IGFBP7 under-expression in HGSC samples relative to reference NOSE cells.
This is a cancer-specific event as methylation of ABCA1 was not observed in IOSE and normal ovarian surface epithelial (NOSE) cells.
Based on our RT-PCR and western blotting results, SLP-2 mRNA and protein expression levels were higher in epithelial ovarian cancer cell lines than in NOSE cells (Figs. 1a and b).
In addition, the small number of genes detected as differentially expressed between LMP and NOSE suggests that these tumours have a very similar profile to NOSE cells, and also suggests that a better molecular distinction between NOSE and LMP will need further investigation.
As shown in Figure 1D, bisulfite sequencing PCR analysis also corroborated the MSP data, further confirming a lack of DNA methylation in CLDN3-repressed cells, whereas CLDN3 expression (absent) and DNA methylation levels (little or none) in primary cultured NOSE cells were similar to IOSE cells.
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