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 *

87 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 353771)

  • 1. A comparison of drop-plate and pour-plate methods for bacterial population counts of poultry anaphage (dehydrated caged layer excreta).
    Richmond D; Chang TS
    Poult Sci; 1978 Jan; 57(1):293-5. PubMed ID: 353771
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Microbiological analysis of poultry anaphage.
    Chang TS; Currigan DJ; Murphy DW; Zindel HC
    Poult Sci; 1974 May; 53(3):1242-5. PubMed ID: 4841707
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Semiquantitative assessment of the distribution of Salmonella in the environment of caged layer flocks.
    Wales A; Breslin M; Davies R
    J Appl Microbiol; 2006 Aug; 101(2):309-18. PubMed ID: 16882138
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Salmonella in the laying hen. 3. A comparison of various enrichment broths and plating media for the isolation of Salmonella from poultry feces and poultry food products.
    Cox NA; Davis BH; Kendall JH; Watts AB; Colmer AR
    Poult Sci; 1972 Jul; 51(4):1312-6. PubMed ID: 4567250
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Influence of different protein sources in the broiler diet on the presence of Campylobacter spp. in excreta and caecal content.
    Visscher CF; Abd El-Wahab A; Ahmed MFE; Hankel J; Taube V; Kamphues J
    J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr (Berl); 2017 Jun; 101 Suppl 1():95-104. PubMed ID: 28627052
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. [Occurrence and transmission of Campylobacter jejuni/coli in young poultry fattening production. 1].
    Altmeyer M; Krabisch P; Dorn P
    Dtsch Tierarztl Wochenschr; 1985 Nov; 92(11-12):456-9. PubMed ID: 3910389
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Use of delayed secondary enrichment for the isolation of Salmonella in poultry and poultry environments.
    Waltman WD; Horne AM; Pirkle C; Dickson TG
    Avian Dis; 1991; 35(1):88-92. PubMed ID: 2029264
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Comparison of selective enrichment media for the detection of Salmonella in poultry faeces.
    Voogt N; Raes M; Wannet WJ; Henken AM; van de Giessen AW
    Lett Appl Microbiol; 2001 Feb; 32(2):89-92. PubMed ID: 11169049
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Comparison of 7 culture methods for Salmonella serovar Enteritidis and Salmonella serovar Typhimurium isolation in poultry feces.
    Rodríguez FI; Procura F; Bueno DJ
    Poult Sci; 2018 Nov; 97(11):3826-3836. PubMed ID: 29945189
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Bacterial counts in urine. 2. A comparison of different methods.
    Haugen J; Ström O; Ostervold B
    Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand; 1969; 77(1):149-61. PubMed ID: 4904666
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Effect of housing arrangement on fecal-oral transmission of avian hepatitis E virus in chicken flocks.
    Liu B; Sun Y; Chen Y; Du T; Nan Y; Wang X; Li H; Huang B; Zhang G; Zhou EM; Zhao Q
    BMC Vet Res; 2017 Sep; 13(1):282. PubMed ID: 28882185
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Comparison of cotton swab versus algiante swab sampling method in the bacteriological examination of broiler chickens.
    Notermans S; Hindle V; Kampelmacher EH
    J Hyg (Lond); 1976 Oct; 77(2):205-10. PubMed ID: 789765
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Enumeration of Clostridium botulinum spores in meats by a pour-plate procedure.
    Hauschild AH; Hilsheimer R
    Can J Microbiol; 1977 Jun; 23(6):829-32. PubMed ID: 326365
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Urine screening with the MS-2.
    Hoban DJ; Koss JC; Gratton CA; Ronald AR
    J Clin Microbiol; 1983 Jun; 17(6):1061-5. PubMed ID: 6348075
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Identifying enteric bacteria directly from primary isolation media.
    Barry AL; Rosner R
    Am J Clin Pathol; 1971 Aug; 56(2):249-52. PubMed ID: 4936018
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Cecal drop reflects the chickens' cecal microbiome, fecal drop does not.
    Pauwels J; Taminiau B; Janssens GP; De Beenhouwer M; Delhalle L; Daube G; Coopman F
    J Microbiol Methods; 2015 Oct; 117():164-70. PubMed ID: 26264624
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The era of home urine cultures.
    Gillenwater JY; Gleason CH; Lohr JA; Marion D
    Trans Am Assoc Genitourin Surg; 1975; 67():8-10. PubMed ID: 788306
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Comparison of pour and surface plate methods for determination of bacterial counts.
    Clark DS
    Can J Microbiol; 1967 Nov; 13(11):1409-12. PubMed ID: 4863487
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Effects of drying methods on nitrogen and energy concentrations in pig feces and urine, and poultry excreta.
    Jacobs BM; Patience JF; Dozier WA; Stalder KJ; Kerr BJ
    J Anim Sci; 2011 Aug; 89(8):2624-30. PubMed ID: 21454859
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Comparison of the streak-plate and pour-plate techniques for determination of coliform counts of mild samples using crystal violet-neutral red-lactose-bile (VRBL) medium.
    Szita G; Takács J; Lendvai I
    Acta Vet Acad Sci Hung; 1981; 29(1):13-6. PubMed ID: 7044075
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.