These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

176 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10432617)

  • 1. The effect of luminol on presumptive tests and DNA analysis using the polymerase chain reaction.
    Gross AM; Harris KA; Kaldun GL
    J Forensic Sci; 1999 Jul; 44(4):837-40. PubMed ID: 10432617
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Effect of presumptive tests reagents on human blood confirmatory tests and DNA analysis using real time polymerase chain reaction.
    de Almeida JP; Glesse N; Bonorino C
    Forensic Sci Int; 2011 Mar; 206(1-3):58-61. PubMed ID: 20643520
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. A novel approach to obtaining reliable PCR results from luminol treated bloodstains.
    Della Manna A; Montpetit S
    J Forensic Sci; 2000 Jul; 45(4):886-90. PubMed ID: 10914590
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. A comparison of the presumptive luminol test for blood with four non-chemiluminescent forensic techniques.
    Webb JL; Creamer JI; Quickenden TI
    Luminescence; 2006; 21(4):214-20. PubMed ID: 16645959
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Technical note: The effects of Bluestar(®) and luminol when used in conjunction with tetramethylbenzidine or phenolphthalein.
    Luedeke M; Miller E; Sprague JE
    Forensic Sci Int; 2016 May; 262():156-9. PubMed ID: 26990564
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. [A comparison of the Bluestar and luminol effectiveness in bloodstain detection].
    łuczak S; Woźniak M; Papuga M; Stopińiska K; Sliwka K
    Arch Med Sadowej Kryminol; 2006; 56(4):239-45. PubMed ID: 17249372
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Effects of presumptive test reagents on the ability to obtain restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) patterns from human blood and semen stains.
    Hochmeister MN; Budowle B; Baechtel FS
    J Forensic Sci; 1991 May; 36(3):656-61. PubMed ID: 1677394
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Chemical enhancement techniques of bloodstain patterns and DNA recovery after fire exposure.
    Tontarski KL; Hoskins KA; Watkins TG; Brun-Conti L; Michaud AL
    J Forensic Sci; 2009 Jan; 54(1):37-48. PubMed ID: 19018938
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The presumptive reagent fluorescein for detection of dilute bloodstains and subsequent STR typing of recovered DNA.
    Budowle B; Leggitt JL; Defenbaugh DA; Keys KM; Malkiewicz SF
    J Forensic Sci; 2000 Sep; 45(5):1090-2. PubMed ID: 11005186
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Evaluation of six presumptive tests for blood, their specificity, sensitivity, and effect on high molecular-weight DNA.
    Tobe SS; Watson N; Daéid NN
    J Forensic Sci; 2007 Jan; 52(1):102-9. PubMed ID: 17209919
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Fingerprint enhancement revisited and the effects of blood enhancement chemicals on subsequent profiler Plus fluorescent short tandem repeat DNA analysis of fresh and aged bloody fingerprints.
    Frégeau CJ; Germain O; Fourney RM
    J Forensic Sci; 2000 Mar; 45(2):354-80. PubMed ID: 10782955
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Bleach interference in forensic luminol tests on porous surfaces: more about the drying time effect.
    Castelló A; Francés F; Verdú F
    Talanta; 2009 Feb; 77(4):1555-7. PubMed ID: 19084679
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Attempted cleaning of bloodstains and its effect on the forensic luminol test.
    Creamer JI; Quickenden TI; Crichton LB; Robertson P; Ruhayel RA
    Luminescence; 2005; 20(6):411-3. PubMed ID: 15966054
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The use of Polilight in the detection of seminal fluid, saliva, and bloodstains and comparison with conventional chemical-based screening tests.
    Vandenberg N; van Oorschot RA
    J Forensic Sci; 2006 Mar; 51(2):361-70. PubMed ID: 16566772
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Direct-STR typing from presumptively-tested and untreated body fluids.
    Thanakiatkrai P; Raham K; Pradutkanchana J; Sotthibandhu S; Kitpipit T
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2017 Sep; 30():1-9. PubMed ID: 28605649
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. A study of the sensitivity and specificity of four presumptive tests for blood.
    Cox M
    J Forensic Sci; 1991 Sep; 36(5):1503-11. PubMed ID: 1955838
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Long PCR for VNTR analysis.
    Richie KL; Goldsborough MD; Darfler MM; Benzinger EA; Lovekamp ML; Reeder DJ; O'Connell CD
    J Forensic Sci; 1999 Nov; 44(6):1176-85. PubMed ID: 10582357
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The effect of mark enhancement techniques on the presumptive and confirmatory tests for blood.
    Stewart V; Deacon P; Zahra N; Uchimoto ML; Farrugia KJ
    Sci Justice; 2018 Nov; 58(6):386-396. PubMed ID: 30446067
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. [Preliminary tests with Hemastix and Sangur test strips and Phosphatesmo KM test paper do not modify DNA typing of blood and semen stains].
    Liechti-Gallati S; Borer U
    Arch Kriminol; 1994; 193(1-2):37-42. PubMed ID: 7908512
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. [Comparative research of the influence factors of DNA extraction of bloodstain on the filter paper with Chelex-100 method].
    Ba HJ; Liu BQ; Ma J; Zhu AH; Lin ZQ
    Fa Yi Xue Za Zhi; 2007 Oct; 23(5):347-8. PubMed ID: 18175573
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.