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
Photography or electronic image acquisition is required to document results obtained from staining protein gels with the fluorescent SYPRO dyes. We found that, when using Polaroid type 667 or 57 instant films, the choice of optical filter combination and photographic exposure time strongly influences protein detection sensitivity limits. Ultraviolet light-blocking Kodak Wratten No. 2A and 2B gelatin filters autofluorescence when illuminated at 300 nm. The use of these filters in combination with Wratten No. 22 or 25 filters or SYPRO gel photographic filters gives rise to increased background signals, which for long photographic exposures can obscure signals due to protein bands. Surprisingly, the use of these same ultraviolet lightblocking filters enhanced the protein detection sensitivity obtained with short photographic exposures. Under the conditions tested, we found minimal differences in performance for Polaroid type 667 and 57 films.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/abio.1997.2117 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!