Review



anti flag antibody nano agarose beads  (MedChemExpress)


Bioz Verified Symbol MedChemExpress is a verified supplier
Bioz Manufacturer Symbol MedChemExpress manufactures this product  
  • Logo
  • About
  • News
  • Press Release
  • Team
  • Advisors
  • Partners
  • Contact
  • Bioz Stars
  • Bioz vStars
  • 95

    Structured Review

    MedChemExpress anti flag antibody nano agarose beads
    ML792 disrupts SMAD4 SUMOylation-dependent nuclear translocation in TGFβ 2 -stimulated lens epithelial cells (LECs). (A – F) FHL124 LECs were treated with or without TGFβ2 (10 ng/mL, 2 h). Triple immunofluorescence staining of SMAD4 (green), SUMO1 (red)/SUMO2/3 (red), and DAPI (nuclei, blue) shows spatiotemporal dynamics of SMAD4-SUMO colocalization. (A, D) SMAD4-SUMO1/SUMO2/3 immunofluorescence staining and colocalization scatterplot. (B, E) Pearson's r analysis of colocalization performed by Image J. n = 9 replicates per group. (C, F) Quantification of nuclear SMAD4 intensity. n = 30 cells in (C) and n = 44 cells in (F). Unpaired Student's t -test; ∗ P < 0.05 and ∗∗∗ P < 0.001. (G, H) Flag-SMAD4 immunoprecipitation in engineered FHL124 LECs overexpressing Flag-SMAD4. Treatments were 0.1% DMSO, TGFβ 2 (10 ng/mL), ML792 (10 μM), or their combination for 2 h. (G, H) Whole-cell lysates were blotted <t>with</t> <t>anti-Flag</t> and anti-SMAD4 (INPUT). Cell lysates were immunoprecipitated with anti-Flag, followed by SUMO1 immunoblotting (G) and SUMO2/3 immunoblotting (H). (I, J) Subcellular fractionation analysis. (I) Immunoblots of cytoplasmic/nuclear SMAD4 after 8 h treatments in FHL12.4 LECs. (J) Quantification was normalized to GAPDH (cytoplasm) and lamin A/C (nucleus). One-way ANOVA with Bonferroni correction; ns, not significant; ∗∗ P < 0.01 and ∗∗∗ P < 0.001. (K, L) SMAD4 nuclear translocation analysis. (K) Triple immunofluorescence staining SMAD4 (red), F-actin (Phalloidin, green), and DAPI (nuclei, blue) in LECs treated as indicated in (I). Scar bar: 20 μm. (L) Nuclear SMAD4 fluorescence intensity quantification. n = 30 cells per group. One-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post-hoc test; ∗ P < 0.05 and ∗∗∗ P < 0.001.
    Anti Flag Antibody Nano Agarose Beads, supplied by MedChemExpress, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 95/100, based on 87 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/anti flag antibody nano agarose beads/product/MedChemExpress
    Average 95 stars, based on 87 article reviews
    anti flag antibody nano agarose beads - by Bioz Stars, 2026-04
    95/100 stars

    Images

    1) Product Images from "Blockage of SUMO E1 enzyme inhibits ocular lens fibrosis by mediating SMAD4 SUMOylation"

    Article Title: Blockage of SUMO E1 enzyme inhibits ocular lens fibrosis by mediating SMAD4 SUMOylation

    Journal: Genes & Diseases

    doi: 10.1016/j.gendis.2025.101827

    ML792 disrupts SMAD4 SUMOylation-dependent nuclear translocation in TGFβ 2 -stimulated lens epithelial cells (LECs). (A – F) FHL124 LECs were treated with or without TGFβ2 (10 ng/mL, 2 h). Triple immunofluorescence staining of SMAD4 (green), SUMO1 (red)/SUMO2/3 (red), and DAPI (nuclei, blue) shows spatiotemporal dynamics of SMAD4-SUMO colocalization. (A, D) SMAD4-SUMO1/SUMO2/3 immunofluorescence staining and colocalization scatterplot. (B, E) Pearson's r analysis of colocalization performed by Image J. n = 9 replicates per group. (C, F) Quantification of nuclear SMAD4 intensity. n = 30 cells in (C) and n = 44 cells in (F). Unpaired Student's t -test; ∗ P < 0.05 and ∗∗∗ P < 0.001. (G, H) Flag-SMAD4 immunoprecipitation in engineered FHL124 LECs overexpressing Flag-SMAD4. Treatments were 0.1% DMSO, TGFβ 2 (10 ng/mL), ML792 (10 μM), or their combination for 2 h. (G, H) Whole-cell lysates were blotted with anti-Flag and anti-SMAD4 (INPUT). Cell lysates were immunoprecipitated with anti-Flag, followed by SUMO1 immunoblotting (G) and SUMO2/3 immunoblotting (H). (I, J) Subcellular fractionation analysis. (I) Immunoblots of cytoplasmic/nuclear SMAD4 after 8 h treatments in FHL12.4 LECs. (J) Quantification was normalized to GAPDH (cytoplasm) and lamin A/C (nucleus). One-way ANOVA with Bonferroni correction; ns, not significant; ∗∗ P < 0.01 and ∗∗∗ P < 0.001. (K, L) SMAD4 nuclear translocation analysis. (K) Triple immunofluorescence staining SMAD4 (red), F-actin (Phalloidin, green), and DAPI (nuclei, blue) in LECs treated as indicated in (I). Scar bar: 20 μm. (L) Nuclear SMAD4 fluorescence intensity quantification. n = 30 cells per group. One-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post-hoc test; ∗ P < 0.05 and ∗∗∗ P < 0.001.
    Figure Legend Snippet: ML792 disrupts SMAD4 SUMOylation-dependent nuclear translocation in TGFβ 2 -stimulated lens epithelial cells (LECs). (A – F) FHL124 LECs were treated with or without TGFβ2 (10 ng/mL, 2 h). Triple immunofluorescence staining of SMAD4 (green), SUMO1 (red)/SUMO2/3 (red), and DAPI (nuclei, blue) shows spatiotemporal dynamics of SMAD4-SUMO colocalization. (A, D) SMAD4-SUMO1/SUMO2/3 immunofluorescence staining and colocalization scatterplot. (B, E) Pearson's r analysis of colocalization performed by Image J. n = 9 replicates per group. (C, F) Quantification of nuclear SMAD4 intensity. n = 30 cells in (C) and n = 44 cells in (F). Unpaired Student's t -test; ∗ P < 0.05 and ∗∗∗ P < 0.001. (G, H) Flag-SMAD4 immunoprecipitation in engineered FHL124 LECs overexpressing Flag-SMAD4. Treatments were 0.1% DMSO, TGFβ 2 (10 ng/mL), ML792 (10 μM), or their combination for 2 h. (G, H) Whole-cell lysates were blotted with anti-Flag and anti-SMAD4 (INPUT). Cell lysates were immunoprecipitated with anti-Flag, followed by SUMO1 immunoblotting (G) and SUMO2/3 immunoblotting (H). (I, J) Subcellular fractionation analysis. (I) Immunoblots of cytoplasmic/nuclear SMAD4 after 8 h treatments in FHL12.4 LECs. (J) Quantification was normalized to GAPDH (cytoplasm) and lamin A/C (nucleus). One-way ANOVA with Bonferroni correction; ns, not significant; ∗∗ P < 0.01 and ∗∗∗ P < 0.001. (K, L) SMAD4 nuclear translocation analysis. (K) Triple immunofluorescence staining SMAD4 (red), F-actin (Phalloidin, green), and DAPI (nuclei, blue) in LECs treated as indicated in (I). Scar bar: 20 μm. (L) Nuclear SMAD4 fluorescence intensity quantification. n = 30 cells per group. One-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post-hoc test; ∗ P < 0.05 and ∗∗∗ P < 0.001.

    Techniques Used: Translocation Assay, Immunofluorescence, Staining, Immunoprecipitation, Western Blot, Fractionation, Fluorescence

    SUMOylation site mutagenesis abolishes SMAD4-mediated epithelial–mesenchymal transition (EMT) in TGFβ 2 -stimulated lens epithelial cells (LECs). (A) Sanger sequencing validation of SMAD4 mutants. WT, wild-type; K113R, Lys113→Arg; K159R, Lys159→Arg. The black frames indicate WT and mutated codons. (B, C) SUMOylation capacity analysis in SMAD4 mutants. (B) FHL124 LECs stably overexpressed empty vector and flag-SMAD4 variants treated with TGFβ 2 (10 ng/mL, 2 h). Whole-cell lysates were immunoblotted with anti-Flag and anti-SMAD4. β-Tubulin served as the loading control. The cell lysates were immunoprecipitated with anti-Flag nano beads, followed by immunoblotting for SUMO1, SUMO2/3, and Flag antibody. (C) Quantification of SMAD4 expression (Input lysates). One-way ANOVA with Bonferroni correction; ns, not significant; ∗∗∗ P < 0.001. (D, E) SMAD4 nuclear translocation analysis. (D) Triple fluorescence imaging of Flag (SMAD4, red), F-actin (phalloidin, green), and DAPI (nuclei, blue) in engineered LECs treated with TGFβ 2 (10 ng/mL, 2 h). (E) Nuclear SMAD4 intensity quantification ( n = 15–18 cells/group). One-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post-hoc test; ∗∗∗ P < 0.001. (F, G) Functional consequence of double site mutant (K113 plus 159R) SMAD4 protein. (F) EMT marker immunoblotting 24 h after TGFβ 2 treatment in human LECs overexpressing empty vector, WT Flag-tagged SMAD4, or double site mutant Flag-tagged SMAD4. (G) Densitometric analysis from (F). β-Tubulin served as the loading control. One-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni correction; ns, not significant; ∗ P < 0.05. ∗∗ P < 0.01, and ∗∗∗ P < 0.001.
    Figure Legend Snippet: SUMOylation site mutagenesis abolishes SMAD4-mediated epithelial–mesenchymal transition (EMT) in TGFβ 2 -stimulated lens epithelial cells (LECs). (A) Sanger sequencing validation of SMAD4 mutants. WT, wild-type; K113R, Lys113→Arg; K159R, Lys159→Arg. The black frames indicate WT and mutated codons. (B, C) SUMOylation capacity analysis in SMAD4 mutants. (B) FHL124 LECs stably overexpressed empty vector and flag-SMAD4 variants treated with TGFβ 2 (10 ng/mL, 2 h). Whole-cell lysates were immunoblotted with anti-Flag and anti-SMAD4. β-Tubulin served as the loading control. The cell lysates were immunoprecipitated with anti-Flag nano beads, followed by immunoblotting for SUMO1, SUMO2/3, and Flag antibody. (C) Quantification of SMAD4 expression (Input lysates). One-way ANOVA with Bonferroni correction; ns, not significant; ∗∗∗ P < 0.001. (D, E) SMAD4 nuclear translocation analysis. (D) Triple fluorescence imaging of Flag (SMAD4, red), F-actin (phalloidin, green), and DAPI (nuclei, blue) in engineered LECs treated with TGFβ 2 (10 ng/mL, 2 h). (E) Nuclear SMAD4 intensity quantification ( n = 15–18 cells/group). One-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post-hoc test; ∗∗∗ P < 0.001. (F, G) Functional consequence of double site mutant (K113 plus 159R) SMAD4 protein. (F) EMT marker immunoblotting 24 h after TGFβ 2 treatment in human LECs overexpressing empty vector, WT Flag-tagged SMAD4, or double site mutant Flag-tagged SMAD4. (G) Densitometric analysis from (F). β-Tubulin served as the loading control. One-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni correction; ns, not significant; ∗ P < 0.05. ∗∗ P < 0.01, and ∗∗∗ P < 0.001.

    Techniques Used: Mutagenesis, Sequencing, Biomarker Discovery, Stable Transfection, Plasmid Preparation, Control, Immunoprecipitation, Western Blot, Expressing, Translocation Assay, Fluorescence, Imaging, Functional Assay, Marker



    Similar Products

    95
    MedChemExpress anti flag antibody nano agarose beads
    ML792 disrupts SMAD4 SUMOylation-dependent nuclear translocation in TGFβ 2 -stimulated lens epithelial cells (LECs). (A – F) FHL124 LECs were treated with or without TGFβ2 (10 ng/mL, 2 h). Triple immunofluorescence staining of SMAD4 (green), SUMO1 (red)/SUMO2/3 (red), and DAPI (nuclei, blue) shows spatiotemporal dynamics of SMAD4-SUMO colocalization. (A, D) SMAD4-SUMO1/SUMO2/3 immunofluorescence staining and colocalization scatterplot. (B, E) Pearson's r analysis of colocalization performed by Image J. n = 9 replicates per group. (C, F) Quantification of nuclear SMAD4 intensity. n = 30 cells in (C) and n = 44 cells in (F). Unpaired Student's t -test; ∗ P < 0.05 and ∗∗∗ P < 0.001. (G, H) Flag-SMAD4 immunoprecipitation in engineered FHL124 LECs overexpressing Flag-SMAD4. Treatments were 0.1% DMSO, TGFβ 2 (10 ng/mL), ML792 (10 μM), or their combination for 2 h. (G, H) Whole-cell lysates were blotted <t>with</t> <t>anti-Flag</t> and anti-SMAD4 (INPUT). Cell lysates were immunoprecipitated with anti-Flag, followed by SUMO1 immunoblotting (G) and SUMO2/3 immunoblotting (H). (I, J) Subcellular fractionation analysis. (I) Immunoblots of cytoplasmic/nuclear SMAD4 after 8 h treatments in FHL12.4 LECs. (J) Quantification was normalized to GAPDH (cytoplasm) and lamin A/C (nucleus). One-way ANOVA with Bonferroni correction; ns, not significant; ∗∗ P < 0.01 and ∗∗∗ P < 0.001. (K, L) SMAD4 nuclear translocation analysis. (K) Triple immunofluorescence staining SMAD4 (red), F-actin (Phalloidin, green), and DAPI (nuclei, blue) in LECs treated as indicated in (I). Scar bar: 20 μm. (L) Nuclear SMAD4 fluorescence intensity quantification. n = 30 cells per group. One-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post-hoc test; ∗ P < 0.05 and ∗∗∗ P < 0.001.
    Anti Flag Antibody Nano Agarose Beads, supplied by MedChemExpress, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 95/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/anti flag antibody nano agarose beads/product/MedChemExpress
    Average 95 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    anti flag antibody nano agarose beads - by Bioz Stars, 2026-04
    95/100 stars
      Buy from Supplier

    94
    Sino Biological anti flag tag secondary antibody
    ML792 disrupts SMAD4 SUMOylation-dependent nuclear translocation in TGFβ 2 -stimulated lens epithelial cells (LECs). (A – F) FHL124 LECs were treated with or without TGFβ2 (10 ng/mL, 2 h). Triple immunofluorescence staining of SMAD4 (green), SUMO1 (red)/SUMO2/3 (red), and DAPI (nuclei, blue) shows spatiotemporal dynamics of SMAD4-SUMO colocalization. (A, D) SMAD4-SUMO1/SUMO2/3 immunofluorescence staining and colocalization scatterplot. (B, E) Pearson's r analysis of colocalization performed by Image J. n = 9 replicates per group. (C, F) Quantification of nuclear SMAD4 intensity. n = 30 cells in (C) and n = 44 cells in (F). Unpaired Student's t -test; ∗ P < 0.05 and ∗∗∗ P < 0.001. (G, H) Flag-SMAD4 immunoprecipitation in engineered FHL124 LECs overexpressing Flag-SMAD4. Treatments were 0.1% DMSO, TGFβ 2 (10 ng/mL), ML792 (10 μM), or their combination for 2 h. (G, H) Whole-cell lysates were blotted <t>with</t> <t>anti-Flag</t> and anti-SMAD4 (INPUT). Cell lysates were immunoprecipitated with anti-Flag, followed by SUMO1 immunoblotting (G) and SUMO2/3 immunoblotting (H). (I, J) Subcellular fractionation analysis. (I) Immunoblots of cytoplasmic/nuclear SMAD4 after 8 h treatments in FHL12.4 LECs. (J) Quantification was normalized to GAPDH (cytoplasm) and lamin A/C (nucleus). One-way ANOVA with Bonferroni correction; ns, not significant; ∗∗ P < 0.01 and ∗∗∗ P < 0.001. (K, L) SMAD4 nuclear translocation analysis. (K) Triple immunofluorescence staining SMAD4 (red), F-actin (Phalloidin, green), and DAPI (nuclei, blue) in LECs treated as indicated in (I). Scar bar: 20 μm. (L) Nuclear SMAD4 fluorescence intensity quantification. n = 30 cells per group. One-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post-hoc test; ∗ P < 0.05 and ∗∗∗ P < 0.001.
    Anti Flag Tag Secondary Antibody, supplied by Sino Biological, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 94/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/anti flag tag secondary antibody/product/Sino Biological
    Average 94 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    anti flag tag secondary antibody - by Bioz Stars, 2026-04
    94/100 stars
      Buy from Supplier

    96
    medchemexpress hy-k0207
    ML792 disrupts SMAD4 SUMOylation-dependent nuclear translocation in TGFβ 2 -stimulated lens epithelial cells (LECs). (A – F) FHL124 LECs were treated with or without TGFβ2 (10 ng/mL, 2 h). Triple immunofluorescence staining of SMAD4 (green), SUMO1 (red)/SUMO2/3 (red), and DAPI (nuclei, blue) shows spatiotemporal dynamics of SMAD4-SUMO colocalization. (A, D) SMAD4-SUMO1/SUMO2/3 immunofluorescence staining and colocalization scatterplot. (B, E) Pearson's r analysis of colocalization performed by Image J. n = 9 replicates per group. (C, F) Quantification of nuclear SMAD4 intensity. n = 30 cells in (C) and n = 44 cells in (F). Unpaired Student's t -test; ∗ P < 0.05 and ∗∗∗ P < 0.001. (G, H) Flag-SMAD4 immunoprecipitation in engineered FHL124 LECs overexpressing Flag-SMAD4. Treatments were 0.1% DMSO, TGFβ 2 (10 ng/mL), ML792 (10 μM), or their combination for 2 h. (G, H) Whole-cell lysates were blotted <t>with</t> <t>anti-Flag</t> and anti-SMAD4 (INPUT). Cell lysates were immunoprecipitated with anti-Flag, followed by SUMO1 immunoblotting (G) and SUMO2/3 immunoblotting (H). (I, J) Subcellular fractionation analysis. (I) Immunoblots of cytoplasmic/nuclear SMAD4 after 8 h treatments in FHL12.4 LECs. (J) Quantification was normalized to GAPDH (cytoplasm) and lamin A/C (nucleus). One-way ANOVA with Bonferroni correction; ns, not significant; ∗∗ P < 0.01 and ∗∗∗ P < 0.001. (K, L) SMAD4 nuclear translocation analysis. (K) Triple immunofluorescence staining SMAD4 (red), F-actin (Phalloidin, green), and DAPI (nuclei, blue) in LECs treated as indicated in (I). Scar bar: 20 μm. (L) Nuclear SMAD4 fluorescence intensity quantification. n = 30 cells per group. One-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post-hoc test; ∗ P < 0.05 and ∗∗∗ P < 0.001.
    Hy K0207, supplied by medchemexpress, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 96/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/hy-k0207/product/medchemexpress
    Average 96 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    hy-k0207 - by Bioz Stars, 2026-04
    96/100 stars
      Buy from Supplier

    96
    MedChemExpress hy k0207
    ML792 disrupts SMAD4 SUMOylation-dependent nuclear translocation in TGFβ 2 -stimulated lens epithelial cells (LECs). (A – F) FHL124 LECs were treated with or without TGFβ2 (10 ng/mL, 2 h). Triple immunofluorescence staining of SMAD4 (green), SUMO1 (red)/SUMO2/3 (red), and DAPI (nuclei, blue) shows spatiotemporal dynamics of SMAD4-SUMO colocalization. (A, D) SMAD4-SUMO1/SUMO2/3 immunofluorescence staining and colocalization scatterplot. (B, E) Pearson's r analysis of colocalization performed by Image J. n = 9 replicates per group. (C, F) Quantification of nuclear SMAD4 intensity. n = 30 cells in (C) and n = 44 cells in (F). Unpaired Student's t -test; ∗ P < 0.05 and ∗∗∗ P < 0.001. (G, H) Flag-SMAD4 immunoprecipitation in engineered FHL124 LECs overexpressing Flag-SMAD4. Treatments were 0.1% DMSO, TGFβ 2 (10 ng/mL), ML792 (10 μM), or their combination for 2 h. (G, H) Whole-cell lysates were blotted <t>with</t> <t>anti-Flag</t> and anti-SMAD4 (INPUT). Cell lysates were immunoprecipitated with anti-Flag, followed by SUMO1 immunoblotting (G) and SUMO2/3 immunoblotting (H). (I, J) Subcellular fractionation analysis. (I) Immunoblots of cytoplasmic/nuclear SMAD4 after 8 h treatments in FHL12.4 LECs. (J) Quantification was normalized to GAPDH (cytoplasm) and lamin A/C (nucleus). One-way ANOVA with Bonferroni correction; ns, not significant; ∗∗ P < 0.01 and ∗∗∗ P < 0.001. (K, L) SMAD4 nuclear translocation analysis. (K) Triple immunofluorescence staining SMAD4 (red), F-actin (Phalloidin, green), and DAPI (nuclei, blue) in LECs treated as indicated in (I). Scar bar: 20 μm. (L) Nuclear SMAD4 fluorescence intensity quantification. n = 30 cells per group. One-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post-hoc test; ∗ P < 0.05 and ∗∗∗ P < 0.001.
    Hy K0207, supplied by MedChemExpress, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 96/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/hy k0207/product/MedChemExpress
    Average 96 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    hy k0207 - by Bioz Stars, 2026-04
    96/100 stars
      Buy from Supplier

    96
    MedChemExpress anti flag magnetic beads
    ML792 disrupts SMAD4 SUMOylation-dependent nuclear translocation in TGFβ 2 -stimulated lens epithelial cells (LECs). (A – F) FHL124 LECs were treated with or without TGFβ2 (10 ng/mL, 2 h). Triple immunofluorescence staining of SMAD4 (green), SUMO1 (red)/SUMO2/3 (red), and DAPI (nuclei, blue) shows spatiotemporal dynamics of SMAD4-SUMO colocalization. (A, D) SMAD4-SUMO1/SUMO2/3 immunofluorescence staining and colocalization scatterplot. (B, E) Pearson's r analysis of colocalization performed by Image J. n = 9 replicates per group. (C, F) Quantification of nuclear SMAD4 intensity. n = 30 cells in (C) and n = 44 cells in (F). Unpaired Student's t -test; ∗ P < 0.05 and ∗∗∗ P < 0.001. (G, H) Flag-SMAD4 immunoprecipitation in engineered FHL124 LECs overexpressing Flag-SMAD4. Treatments were 0.1% DMSO, TGFβ 2 (10 ng/mL), ML792 (10 μM), or their combination for 2 h. (G, H) Whole-cell lysates were blotted <t>with</t> <t>anti-Flag</t> and anti-SMAD4 (INPUT). Cell lysates were immunoprecipitated with anti-Flag, followed by SUMO1 immunoblotting (G) and SUMO2/3 immunoblotting (H). (I, J) Subcellular fractionation analysis. (I) Immunoblots of cytoplasmic/nuclear SMAD4 after 8 h treatments in FHL12.4 LECs. (J) Quantification was normalized to GAPDH (cytoplasm) and lamin A/C (nucleus). One-way ANOVA with Bonferroni correction; ns, not significant; ∗∗ P < 0.01 and ∗∗∗ P < 0.001. (K, L) SMAD4 nuclear translocation analysis. (K) Triple immunofluorescence staining SMAD4 (red), F-actin (Phalloidin, green), and DAPI (nuclei, blue) in LECs treated as indicated in (I). Scar bar: 20 μm. (L) Nuclear SMAD4 fluorescence intensity quantification. n = 30 cells per group. One-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post-hoc test; ∗ P < 0.05 and ∗∗∗ P < 0.001.
    Anti Flag Magnetic Beads, supplied by MedChemExpress, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 96/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/anti flag magnetic beads/product/MedChemExpress
    Average 96 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    anti flag magnetic beads - by Bioz Stars, 2026-04
    96/100 stars
      Buy from Supplier

    96
    Proteintech flag
    ML792 disrupts SMAD4 SUMOylation-dependent nuclear translocation in TGFβ 2 -stimulated lens epithelial cells (LECs). (A – F) FHL124 LECs were treated with or without TGFβ2 (10 ng/mL, 2 h). Triple immunofluorescence staining of SMAD4 (green), SUMO1 (red)/SUMO2/3 (red), and DAPI (nuclei, blue) shows spatiotemporal dynamics of SMAD4-SUMO colocalization. (A, D) SMAD4-SUMO1/SUMO2/3 immunofluorescence staining and colocalization scatterplot. (B, E) Pearson's r analysis of colocalization performed by Image J. n = 9 replicates per group. (C, F) Quantification of nuclear SMAD4 intensity. n = 30 cells in (C) and n = 44 cells in (F). Unpaired Student's t -test; ∗ P < 0.05 and ∗∗∗ P < 0.001. (G, H) Flag-SMAD4 immunoprecipitation in engineered FHL124 LECs overexpressing Flag-SMAD4. Treatments were 0.1% DMSO, TGFβ 2 (10 ng/mL), ML792 (10 μM), or their combination for 2 h. (G, H) Whole-cell lysates were blotted <t>with</t> <t>anti-Flag</t> and anti-SMAD4 (INPUT). Cell lysates were immunoprecipitated with anti-Flag, followed by SUMO1 immunoblotting (G) and SUMO2/3 immunoblotting (H). (I, J) Subcellular fractionation analysis. (I) Immunoblots of cytoplasmic/nuclear SMAD4 after 8 h treatments in FHL12.4 LECs. (J) Quantification was normalized to GAPDH (cytoplasm) and lamin A/C (nucleus). One-way ANOVA with Bonferroni correction; ns, not significant; ∗∗ P < 0.01 and ∗∗∗ P < 0.001. (K, L) SMAD4 nuclear translocation analysis. (K) Triple immunofluorescence staining SMAD4 (red), F-actin (Phalloidin, green), and DAPI (nuclei, blue) in LECs treated as indicated in (I). Scar bar: 20 μm. (L) Nuclear SMAD4 fluorescence intensity quantification. n = 30 cells per group. One-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post-hoc test; ∗ P < 0.05 and ∗∗∗ P < 0.001.
    Flag, supplied by Proteintech, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 96/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/flag/product/Proteintech
    Average 96 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    flag - by Bioz Stars, 2026-04
    96/100 stars
      Buy from Supplier

    94
    Proteintech flag 66008 4 ig
    ML792 disrupts SMAD4 SUMOylation-dependent nuclear translocation in TGFβ 2 -stimulated lens epithelial cells (LECs). (A – F) FHL124 LECs were treated with or without TGFβ2 (10 ng/mL, 2 h). Triple immunofluorescence staining of SMAD4 (green), SUMO1 (red)/SUMO2/3 (red), and DAPI (nuclei, blue) shows spatiotemporal dynamics of SMAD4-SUMO colocalization. (A, D) SMAD4-SUMO1/SUMO2/3 immunofluorescence staining and colocalization scatterplot. (B, E) Pearson's r analysis of colocalization performed by Image J. n = 9 replicates per group. (C, F) Quantification of nuclear SMAD4 intensity. n = 30 cells in (C) and n = 44 cells in (F). Unpaired Student's t -test; ∗ P < 0.05 and ∗∗∗ P < 0.001. (G, H) Flag-SMAD4 immunoprecipitation in engineered FHL124 LECs overexpressing Flag-SMAD4. Treatments were 0.1% DMSO, TGFβ 2 (10 ng/mL), ML792 (10 μM), or their combination for 2 h. (G, H) Whole-cell lysates were blotted <t>with</t> <t>anti-Flag</t> and anti-SMAD4 (INPUT). Cell lysates were immunoprecipitated with anti-Flag, followed by SUMO1 immunoblotting (G) and SUMO2/3 immunoblotting (H). (I, J) Subcellular fractionation analysis. (I) Immunoblots of cytoplasmic/nuclear SMAD4 after 8 h treatments in FHL12.4 LECs. (J) Quantification was normalized to GAPDH (cytoplasm) and lamin A/C (nucleus). One-way ANOVA with Bonferroni correction; ns, not significant; ∗∗ P < 0.01 and ∗∗∗ P < 0.001. (K, L) SMAD4 nuclear translocation analysis. (K) Triple immunofluorescence staining SMAD4 (red), F-actin (Phalloidin, green), and DAPI (nuclei, blue) in LECs treated as indicated in (I). Scar bar: 20 μm. (L) Nuclear SMAD4 fluorescence intensity quantification. n = 30 cells per group. One-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post-hoc test; ∗ P < 0.05 and ∗∗∗ P < 0.001.
    Flag 66008 4 Ig, supplied by Proteintech, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 94/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/flag 66008 4 ig/product/Proteintech
    Average 94 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    flag 66008 4 ig - by Bioz Stars, 2026-04
    94/100 stars
      Buy from Supplier

    96
    MedChemExpress anti flag
    ML792 disrupts SMAD4 SUMOylation-dependent nuclear translocation in TGFβ 2 -stimulated lens epithelial cells (LECs). (A – F) FHL124 LECs were treated with or without TGFβ2 (10 ng/mL, 2 h). Triple immunofluorescence staining of SMAD4 (green), SUMO1 (red)/SUMO2/3 (red), and DAPI (nuclei, blue) shows spatiotemporal dynamics of SMAD4-SUMO colocalization. (A, D) SMAD4-SUMO1/SUMO2/3 immunofluorescence staining and colocalization scatterplot. (B, E) Pearson's r analysis of colocalization performed by Image J. n = 9 replicates per group. (C, F) Quantification of nuclear SMAD4 intensity. n = 30 cells in (C) and n = 44 cells in (F). Unpaired Student's t -test; ∗ P < 0.05 and ∗∗∗ P < 0.001. (G, H) Flag-SMAD4 immunoprecipitation in engineered FHL124 LECs overexpressing Flag-SMAD4. Treatments were 0.1% DMSO, TGFβ 2 (10 ng/mL), ML792 (10 μM), or their combination for 2 h. (G, H) Whole-cell lysates were blotted <t>with</t> <t>anti-Flag</t> and anti-SMAD4 (INPUT). Cell lysates were immunoprecipitated with anti-Flag, followed by SUMO1 immunoblotting (G) and SUMO2/3 immunoblotting (H). (I, J) Subcellular fractionation analysis. (I) Immunoblots of cytoplasmic/nuclear SMAD4 after 8 h treatments in FHL12.4 LECs. (J) Quantification was normalized to GAPDH (cytoplasm) and lamin A/C (nucleus). One-way ANOVA with Bonferroni correction; ns, not significant; ∗∗ P < 0.01 and ∗∗∗ P < 0.001. (K, L) SMAD4 nuclear translocation analysis. (K) Triple immunofluorescence staining SMAD4 (red), F-actin (Phalloidin, green), and DAPI (nuclei, blue) in LECs treated as indicated in (I). Scar bar: 20 μm. (L) Nuclear SMAD4 fluorescence intensity quantification. n = 30 cells per group. One-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post-hoc test; ∗ P < 0.05 and ∗∗∗ P < 0.001.
    Anti Flag, supplied by MedChemExpress, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 96/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/anti flag/product/MedChemExpress
    Average 96 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    anti flag - by Bioz Stars, 2026-04
    96/100 stars
      Buy from Supplier

    Image Search Results


    ML792 disrupts SMAD4 SUMOylation-dependent nuclear translocation in TGFβ 2 -stimulated lens epithelial cells (LECs). (A – F) FHL124 LECs were treated with or without TGFβ2 (10 ng/mL, 2 h). Triple immunofluorescence staining of SMAD4 (green), SUMO1 (red)/SUMO2/3 (red), and DAPI (nuclei, blue) shows spatiotemporal dynamics of SMAD4-SUMO colocalization. (A, D) SMAD4-SUMO1/SUMO2/3 immunofluorescence staining and colocalization scatterplot. (B, E) Pearson's r analysis of colocalization performed by Image J. n = 9 replicates per group. (C, F) Quantification of nuclear SMAD4 intensity. n = 30 cells in (C) and n = 44 cells in (F). Unpaired Student's t -test; ∗ P < 0.05 and ∗∗∗ P < 0.001. (G, H) Flag-SMAD4 immunoprecipitation in engineered FHL124 LECs overexpressing Flag-SMAD4. Treatments were 0.1% DMSO, TGFβ 2 (10 ng/mL), ML792 (10 μM), or their combination for 2 h. (G, H) Whole-cell lysates were blotted with anti-Flag and anti-SMAD4 (INPUT). Cell lysates were immunoprecipitated with anti-Flag, followed by SUMO1 immunoblotting (G) and SUMO2/3 immunoblotting (H). (I, J) Subcellular fractionation analysis. (I) Immunoblots of cytoplasmic/nuclear SMAD4 after 8 h treatments in FHL12.4 LECs. (J) Quantification was normalized to GAPDH (cytoplasm) and lamin A/C (nucleus). One-way ANOVA with Bonferroni correction; ns, not significant; ∗∗ P < 0.01 and ∗∗∗ P < 0.001. (K, L) SMAD4 nuclear translocation analysis. (K) Triple immunofluorescence staining SMAD4 (red), F-actin (Phalloidin, green), and DAPI (nuclei, blue) in LECs treated as indicated in (I). Scar bar: 20 μm. (L) Nuclear SMAD4 fluorescence intensity quantification. n = 30 cells per group. One-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post-hoc test; ∗ P < 0.05 and ∗∗∗ P < 0.001.

    Journal: Genes & Diseases

    Article Title: Blockage of SUMO E1 enzyme inhibits ocular lens fibrosis by mediating SMAD4 SUMOylation

    doi: 10.1016/j.gendis.2025.101827

    Figure Lengend Snippet: ML792 disrupts SMAD4 SUMOylation-dependent nuclear translocation in TGFβ 2 -stimulated lens epithelial cells (LECs). (A – F) FHL124 LECs were treated with or without TGFβ2 (10 ng/mL, 2 h). Triple immunofluorescence staining of SMAD4 (green), SUMO1 (red)/SUMO2/3 (red), and DAPI (nuclei, blue) shows spatiotemporal dynamics of SMAD4-SUMO colocalization. (A, D) SMAD4-SUMO1/SUMO2/3 immunofluorescence staining and colocalization scatterplot. (B, E) Pearson's r analysis of colocalization performed by Image J. n = 9 replicates per group. (C, F) Quantification of nuclear SMAD4 intensity. n = 30 cells in (C) and n = 44 cells in (F). Unpaired Student's t -test; ∗ P < 0.05 and ∗∗∗ P < 0.001. (G, H) Flag-SMAD4 immunoprecipitation in engineered FHL124 LECs overexpressing Flag-SMAD4. Treatments were 0.1% DMSO, TGFβ 2 (10 ng/mL), ML792 (10 μM), or their combination for 2 h. (G, H) Whole-cell lysates were blotted with anti-Flag and anti-SMAD4 (INPUT). Cell lysates were immunoprecipitated with anti-Flag, followed by SUMO1 immunoblotting (G) and SUMO2/3 immunoblotting (H). (I, J) Subcellular fractionation analysis. (I) Immunoblots of cytoplasmic/nuclear SMAD4 after 8 h treatments in FHL12.4 LECs. (J) Quantification was normalized to GAPDH (cytoplasm) and lamin A/C (nucleus). One-way ANOVA with Bonferroni correction; ns, not significant; ∗∗ P < 0.01 and ∗∗∗ P < 0.001. (K, L) SMAD4 nuclear translocation analysis. (K) Triple immunofluorescence staining SMAD4 (red), F-actin (Phalloidin, green), and DAPI (nuclei, blue) in LECs treated as indicated in (I). Scar bar: 20 μm. (L) Nuclear SMAD4 fluorescence intensity quantification. n = 30 cells per group. One-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post-hoc test; ∗ P < 0.05 and ∗∗∗ P < 0.001.

    Article Snippet: Cells were lysed in 0.5% NP-40 buffer (10 mM Tris-Cl, pH 7.4, 150 mM NaCl, 0.5% NP-40, 10% glycerol) containing protease inhibitors (#P2714, Sigma–Aldrich, Missouri, USA) on ice for 5 min. Lysate (2 mg) was precleared with control IgG (#2729, #53484, CST) at 4 °C for 2 h. Immunoprecipitation was performed at 4 °C overnight using anti-Flag antibody/Nano-Agarose beads (#FNM-25-500, NuoyiBio, Tianjin, China), anti-SUMO1 or anti-HA antibody with protein A/G Magnetic beads (#HY-K0202, MedChemExpress, New Jersey, USA).

    Techniques: Translocation Assay, Immunofluorescence, Staining, Immunoprecipitation, Western Blot, Fractionation, Fluorescence

    SUMOylation site mutagenesis abolishes SMAD4-mediated epithelial–mesenchymal transition (EMT) in TGFβ 2 -stimulated lens epithelial cells (LECs). (A) Sanger sequencing validation of SMAD4 mutants. WT, wild-type; K113R, Lys113→Arg; K159R, Lys159→Arg. The black frames indicate WT and mutated codons. (B, C) SUMOylation capacity analysis in SMAD4 mutants. (B) FHL124 LECs stably overexpressed empty vector and flag-SMAD4 variants treated with TGFβ 2 (10 ng/mL, 2 h). Whole-cell lysates were immunoblotted with anti-Flag and anti-SMAD4. β-Tubulin served as the loading control. The cell lysates were immunoprecipitated with anti-Flag nano beads, followed by immunoblotting for SUMO1, SUMO2/3, and Flag antibody. (C) Quantification of SMAD4 expression (Input lysates). One-way ANOVA with Bonferroni correction; ns, not significant; ∗∗∗ P < 0.001. (D, E) SMAD4 nuclear translocation analysis. (D) Triple fluorescence imaging of Flag (SMAD4, red), F-actin (phalloidin, green), and DAPI (nuclei, blue) in engineered LECs treated with TGFβ 2 (10 ng/mL, 2 h). (E) Nuclear SMAD4 intensity quantification ( n = 15–18 cells/group). One-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post-hoc test; ∗∗∗ P < 0.001. (F, G) Functional consequence of double site mutant (K113 plus 159R) SMAD4 protein. (F) EMT marker immunoblotting 24 h after TGFβ 2 treatment in human LECs overexpressing empty vector, WT Flag-tagged SMAD4, or double site mutant Flag-tagged SMAD4. (G) Densitometric analysis from (F). β-Tubulin served as the loading control. One-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni correction; ns, not significant; ∗ P < 0.05. ∗∗ P < 0.01, and ∗∗∗ P < 0.001.

    Journal: Genes & Diseases

    Article Title: Blockage of SUMO E1 enzyme inhibits ocular lens fibrosis by mediating SMAD4 SUMOylation

    doi: 10.1016/j.gendis.2025.101827

    Figure Lengend Snippet: SUMOylation site mutagenesis abolishes SMAD4-mediated epithelial–mesenchymal transition (EMT) in TGFβ 2 -stimulated lens epithelial cells (LECs). (A) Sanger sequencing validation of SMAD4 mutants. WT, wild-type; K113R, Lys113→Arg; K159R, Lys159→Arg. The black frames indicate WT and mutated codons. (B, C) SUMOylation capacity analysis in SMAD4 mutants. (B) FHL124 LECs stably overexpressed empty vector and flag-SMAD4 variants treated with TGFβ 2 (10 ng/mL, 2 h). Whole-cell lysates were immunoblotted with anti-Flag and anti-SMAD4. β-Tubulin served as the loading control. The cell lysates were immunoprecipitated with anti-Flag nano beads, followed by immunoblotting for SUMO1, SUMO2/3, and Flag antibody. (C) Quantification of SMAD4 expression (Input lysates). One-way ANOVA with Bonferroni correction; ns, not significant; ∗∗∗ P < 0.001. (D, E) SMAD4 nuclear translocation analysis. (D) Triple fluorescence imaging of Flag (SMAD4, red), F-actin (phalloidin, green), and DAPI (nuclei, blue) in engineered LECs treated with TGFβ 2 (10 ng/mL, 2 h). (E) Nuclear SMAD4 intensity quantification ( n = 15–18 cells/group). One-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post-hoc test; ∗∗∗ P < 0.001. (F, G) Functional consequence of double site mutant (K113 plus 159R) SMAD4 protein. (F) EMT marker immunoblotting 24 h after TGFβ 2 treatment in human LECs overexpressing empty vector, WT Flag-tagged SMAD4, or double site mutant Flag-tagged SMAD4. (G) Densitometric analysis from (F). β-Tubulin served as the loading control. One-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni correction; ns, not significant; ∗ P < 0.05. ∗∗ P < 0.01, and ∗∗∗ P < 0.001.

    Article Snippet: Cells were lysed in 0.5% NP-40 buffer (10 mM Tris-Cl, pH 7.4, 150 mM NaCl, 0.5% NP-40, 10% glycerol) containing protease inhibitors (#P2714, Sigma–Aldrich, Missouri, USA) on ice for 5 min. Lysate (2 mg) was precleared with control IgG (#2729, #53484, CST) at 4 °C for 2 h. Immunoprecipitation was performed at 4 °C overnight using anti-Flag antibody/Nano-Agarose beads (#FNM-25-500, NuoyiBio, Tianjin, China), anti-SUMO1 or anti-HA antibody with protein A/G Magnetic beads (#HY-K0202, MedChemExpress, New Jersey, USA).

    Techniques: Mutagenesis, Sequencing, Biomarker Discovery, Stable Transfection, Plasmid Preparation, Control, Immunoprecipitation, Western Blot, Expressing, Translocation Assay, Fluorescence, Imaging, Functional Assay, Marker