|
Proteintech
cgrp ![]() Cgrp, 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/cgrp/product/Proteintech Average 94 stars, based on 1 article reviews
cgrp - by Bioz Stars,
2026-05
94/100 stars
|
Buy from Supplier |
|
Cell Signaling Technology Inc
anti cgrp ![]() Anti Cgrp, supplied by Cell Signaling Technology Inc, 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 cgrp/product/Cell Signaling Technology Inc Average 96 stars, based on 1 article reviews
anti cgrp - by Bioz Stars,
2026-05
96/100 stars
|
Buy from Supplier |
|
Novus Biologicals
goat polyclonal antibody against cgrp ![]() Goat Polyclonal Antibody Against Cgrp, supplied by Novus Biologicals, 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/goat polyclonal antibody against cgrp/product/Novus Biologicals Average 94 stars, based on 1 article reviews
goat polyclonal antibody against cgrp - by Bioz Stars,
2026-05
94/100 stars
|
Buy from Supplier |
|
Boster Bio
rabbit anti cgrp ![]() Rabbit Anti Cgrp, supplied by Boster Bio, 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/rabbit anti cgrp/product/Boster Bio Average 94 stars, based on 1 article reviews
rabbit anti cgrp - by Bioz Stars,
2026-05
94/100 stars
|
Buy from Supplier |
|
Santa Cruz Biotechnology
hrp conjugated mouse anti cgrp ![]() Hrp Conjugated Mouse Anti Cgrp, supplied by Santa Cruz Biotechnology, 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/hrp conjugated mouse anti cgrp/product/Santa Cruz Biotechnology Average 94 stars, based on 1 article reviews
hrp conjugated mouse anti cgrp - by Bioz Stars,
2026-05
94/100 stars
|
Buy from Supplier |
|
Cell Signaling Technology Inc
rabbit anti cgrp ![]() Rabbit Anti Cgrp, supplied by Cell Signaling Technology Inc, 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/rabbit anti cgrp/product/Cell Signaling Technology Inc Average 96 stars, based on 1 article reviews
rabbit anti cgrp - by Bioz Stars,
2026-05
96/100 stars
|
Buy from Supplier |
|
Santa Cruz Biotechnology
mouse anti cgrp ![]() Mouse Anti Cgrp, supplied by Santa Cruz Biotechnology, 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/mouse anti cgrp/product/Santa Cruz Biotechnology Average 94 stars, based on 1 article reviews
mouse anti cgrp - by Bioz Stars,
2026-05
94/100 stars
|
Buy from Supplier |
Journal: Bioactive Materials
Article Title: An intelligent nanoliposome alleviates disc degeneration and discogenic pain by inhibiting neurovascular ingrowth via a “Soil-conditioning, seed-modulating, and weeds-suppressing” strategy
doi: 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2025.11.048
Figure Lengend Snippet: NM-LP TK /RSV-MnCDs alleviates discogenic pain in IVDD. (A) Experimental timeline schematic. (B–C) Open-field behavioral analysis showing locomotor activity parameters (active time, central mean speed, total distance, and mean speed) across groups (n = 5). (D–E) PWL and PWT test showing alleviation of thermal and mechanical allodynia by NM-LP TK /RSV-MnCDs in LSI mice (n = 5). (F–G) IHC staining and quantification analyses of DRG sections showing expression of sensory neuropeptides CGRP and SP (n = 5). Scale bar, 100 μm. (H–I) IF co-labeling of PGP9.5 and CGRP/SP in DRG, and corresponding quantification analyses (n = 5). Scale bar, 100 μm. Data are presented as mean ± SD. For comparisons among multiple groups at a single time point, one-way ANOVA followed was employed to determine statistical significance. For datasets involving multiple groups evaluated over time, including PWL and PWT assessments, a two-way repeated measures ANOVA was utilized. ∗, P < 0.05; ∗∗, P < 0.01; ∗∗∗, P < 0.001; ∗∗∗∗, P < 0.0001; ns = not significant.
Article Snippet: For immunofluorescence (IF) staining, antigen retrieval was conducted using citrate buffer (0.1 M, pH 6.0), followed by blocking in 10 % normal goat serum (Solarbio, Cat. No. SL038) at room temperature for 1 h. Sections were incubated overnight at 4 °C with primary antibodies targeting ACAN (Cat. No. DF7561, Affinity), COL2A1 (Cat. No. AF0135, Affinity), MMP3 (Cat. No. AF0217, Affinity), MMP13 (Cat. No. 18165-1-AP, Proteintech), CD31 (Cat. No. AF0077, Affinity), p-LATS1 (Cat. No. AF7170, Affinity), p-YAP (Cat. No. AF3328, Affinity), Tuj1 (Cat. No. 66375,
Techniques: Activity Assay, Immunohistochemistry, Expressing, Labeling
Journal: Cell reports
Article Title: CGRP signaling links tumor-associated pain to immune evasion in oral squamous cell carcinoma
doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2026.116994
Figure Lengend Snippet: (A and B) Representative images of OSCC tumor serial sections stained with either anti-Tubb3 (top, green outline), anti-TRPV1 (middle, red outline), or anti-CGRP (bottom, blue outline) from a patient with (A) and without (B) CGRPα + nerve innervation. Positive stains are indicated by red (TRPV1) or blue (CGRP) arrows. Tumor margins are indicated by a gray dashed line. Image magnification: 6× (left) and 40× (right). Scale bar: 200 μm. (C) Quantification of the percentage of total TRPV1 and CGRP-IR nerve area relative to total Tubb3-IR nerve area across tumor tissue sections from 23 patients with HNSCC. Density is reported as a stacked bar graph. (D) Quantification of the percentage of total CD8 T cell density per square millimeter. (E) Representative images of OSCC tumor serial sections with either a large nerve bundle and low anti-CD8 or small nerve presence and high anti-CD8 immunoreactivity. Scale bar: 150 μm. (F and G) Simple linear regressions were run between patient-reported pain, percentage of total CGRP-IR nerve area relative to total Tubb3-IR, and CD8 + T cell density relative to tumor area. Pain was measured by the FACT-HN additional question 12, “I have pain in my mouth, throat or neck” (FACT-HN10). The response to this question is rated on a scale of 0 (not at all) to 4 (very much). Spearman correlation r coefficients are listed on each graph; p < 0.05. Patient demographics are located in .
Article Snippet:
Techniques: Staining
Journal: Cell reports
Article Title: CGRP signaling links tumor-associated pain to immune evasion in oral squamous cell carcinoma
doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2026.116994
Figure Lengend Snippet: (A) Representative images of CGRP-IR in 300 μm optically cleared sagittal tongue sections from naive (left), MOC1 (middle), and MOC2 (right) tumor-bearing mice (10× magnification stitch, full focus z stack). Scale bar: 0.5 mm. (B) Representative images of co-staining with anti-CGRP and the pan-neuronal marker PGP9.5 in a 20 μm sagittal tongue section to demonstrate CGRP antibody specificity. Scale bar: 50 μm. (C) Representative images of neurite outgrowth in dissociated TG neurons in response to 24 h incubation in cell culture medium, MOC2 CM, or MOC2 medium + 1 μM anti-NGF monoclonal antibody (αNGF). A TG from one mouse was used for each treatment group, and the experiment was replicated five times ( n = 3 males, 2 females). For analysis, dissociated neurons were stained with anti-Tubb3 to visualize neurites and anti-NeuN to visualize cell bodies. Scale bar: 50 μm. (D–F) Integrative density of Tubb3 + neurites relative to the number of cell bodies in each field in response to medium and CM with or without αNGF; 12 areas of each chamber were imaged under 20× magnification, and analysis was completed within cell culture type (i.e., PEK, MOC1, and MOC2). Data are represented as mean ± SEM. One-way ANOVA; * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.005, **** p < 0.001.
Article Snippet:
Techniques: Staining, Marker, Incubation, Cell Culture
Journal: Cell reports
Article Title: CGRP signaling links tumor-associated pain to immune evasion in oral squamous cell carcinoma
doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2026.116994
Figure Lengend Snippet: (A) Representative image of a coronal tongue section from non-tumor bearing mice 1 week following treatment with vehicle (top) or RTX (bottom), stained with anti-CGRP to demonstrate loss of CGRP-expressing fibers following RTX treatment. Scale bar: 100 μm. (B) Schematic of the trigeminal CGRP release assay. (C) CGRP protein quantification in TG isolated from mice 1 week after RTX injection into the tongue ( n = 5 F/group). Data are represented as mean ± SEM. Independent t test, ** p < 0.01. (D) Representative ATF3 staining of in TRPV1-IR neurons in the trigeminal mandibular branch in TG sections from vehicle- and RTX-treated mice. Scale bar: 50 μm. (E) Percentage of ATF3 + TRPV1 + neurons relative to total TRPV1 + neurons in the V3 region from across 9 sections/mouse of mice treated with vehicle or RTX ( n = 3 vehicle, 4 RTX). Tissue was collected 7 days after treatment. There was no difference in the number of TRPV1 neurons between groups. Data are represented as mean ± SEM. Independent t test, *** p < 0.005. (F) RTX treatment did not affect body weight compared to vehicle-treated mice. Change in body weight was calculated as (post-treatment day 7) – (weight on first day of treatment). Independent t test. (G) Representative H&E-stained 5 μm tongue sections from vehicle- and RTX-treated mice 21 days after treatment. The tumor boundary is indicated by a black dashed line. Scale bar: 1 mm. (H) MOC1 tumor volume between groups over time ( n = 5 F/group). Data are represented as mean ± SEM. two-way ANOVA, * p < 0.05. (I and J) Example dot plots and quantification of CD3 + T cell subtype, CD19 + B cells, and NK1.1 + natural killer (NK) cells between groups ( n = 3 F/group). Within-subtype t test comparison, **** p < 0.0001.
Article Snippet:
Techniques: Staining, Expressing, Release Assay, Isolation, Injection, Comparison