Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
DNA labelling provides an exciting tool for elucidating the in vivo dynamics of lymphocytes. However, the kinetics of label incorporation and loss are complex and results can depend on the method of interpretation. Here we describe two approaches to interpreting labelling data. Both seek to explain the common observation that the estimated death rate of lymphocytes is higher than their estimated proliferation rate. In the first approach, an additional source of lymphocytes is postulated. In the second, it is maintained that lymphocyte heterogeneity is sufficient to account for the observation. We explain why we favour the second approach, arguing that the addition of a large source of lymphocytes is unnecessary and difficult to reconcile with what is currently known about lymphocyte physiology. We discuss how the choice of model can affect data interpretation.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s1471-4906(02)02337-2 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!