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: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
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
A comparative analysis was performed to determine the sensitivity and efficiency of three fluorescent labeling techniques, including direct fluorescent-antibody staining (FA), Zenon labeling, and quantum dot (QD) nanocrystal technology. Two varicella-zoster virus immunoglobin (Ig) G forms, mAb 4F9 and mAb g62, were selected for these studies. The results indicated that: (1) All three methods demonstrated similar brightness and photostability; (2) the time required to conjugate the antibody varied, with Zenon labeling being the quickest; and (3) the stability of each conjugated complex was different, with FITC/rhodamine-conjugated antibody being the most stable.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10739149.2010.488620 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!