萍萍家园 » 【有奖问答】 » 审稿意见（看不懂）

hongkongliu 发表于 2010-5-16 16:48

审稿意见（看不懂）

The way that the authors arrive at the S/N = 3 determination is elusive. I just don’t see in comparing the response at 0 and 1 nM DNA conc. how the S/N = 3 is at 0.2 pM when it clearly looks as if at 1nM it is darn close to this level. In addition, I would argue that the S/N = 3 should be compared with a PNA electrode exposed to the non-complementary sequence since there is clearly some signal arising from such conditions (e.g. Fig. 4).

machao.0910 发表于 2010-5-18 19:45

:L

chimugx 发表于 2010-7-7 09:31

The way that the authors arrive at the S/N = 3 determination is elusive. I just don’t see in comparing the response at 0 and 1 nM DNA conc. how the S/N = 3 is at 0.2 pM when it clearly looks as if at 1nM it is darn close to this level. In addition, I would argue that the S/N = 3 should be compared with a PNA electrode exposed to the non-complementary sequence since there is clearly some signal arising from such conditions (e.g. Fig. 4).
作者测定信噪比3：1（是最低检测限吧？）的方法令人难以捉摸。通过比较在0  nM DNA和1 nM DNA两处浓度下所获得的反应（仪器给出的信号）。我不能看出信噪比3：1怎么会处在0.2 nM的浓度，很明显，它看起来就像是处在1 nM的浓度，它接近于这个浓度。另外，信噪比3：1的测定应该与一个暴露于非互补序列的PNA电极进行比较，因为在这个条件下产生的一些信号是清楚的。

kelly-mo 发表于 2010-7-28 09:54

呵呵，很专业嘛。

lcyhit 发表于 2010-8-5 11:21

很专业，看不懂啊

wasxnbe 发表于 2010-10-2 11:34

:)

极乐鸟 发表于 2011-4-15 09:53

太强了，有点偏离我专业~~

Kilua 发表于 2011-7-14 16:49

好好学习

一剑冲天 发表于 2011-7-21 16:41

哈哈
萍友好样的

streamkite 发表于 2011-8-23 20:26

不错的，学习一下。

查看完整版本: 审稿意见（看不懂）