Review




Structured Review

ORF Genetics human lif (hlif)
Human Lif (Hlif), supplied by ORF Genetics, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/result/human lif (hlif)/product/ORF Genetics
Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
human lif (hlif) - by Bioz Stars, 2026-05
90/100 stars

Images



Similar Products

91
Miltenyi Biotec human leukemia inhibitor factor hlif
Human Leukemia Inhibitor Factor Hlif, supplied by Miltenyi Biotec, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 91/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/result/human leukemia inhibitor factor hlif/product/Miltenyi Biotec
Average 91 stars, based on 1 article reviews
human leukemia inhibitor factor hlif - by Bioz Stars, 2026-05
91/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier

93
Sino Biological recombinant hlif his
a Yeast-displayed eLIFR containing the CBM I–Ig-like–CBM II domains (blue circles) has a slightly higher affinity for LIF-His than eLIFR CBM I–Ig-like domains (gray squares). Data are the mean ± SD of triplicate measurements. Data from individual experiments are shown as faint symbols. b Schematic of hLIFR-Fc and eLIFR-Fc. The three N-terminal domains, CBM I–Ig-like–CBM II, are fused to an hIgG1 Fc-domain, with the engineered Ig-like domain shown in dark teal for eLIFR-Fc. c Versus hLIFR-Fc, eLIFR-Fc remains more strongly bound to yeast-displayed LIF after overnight incubation with soluble LIF competitor, indicating a slower off-rate. * P = 0.024, ** P = 0.0024 versus the corresponding hLIFR-Fc condition, two-tailed unpaired Student’s t test. Data are mean ± SD ( n = 3). d KinExA data showing <t>that</t> <t>recombinant</t> eLIFR-Fc (blue triangles) has higher affinity to soluble <t>hLIF-His</t> than hLIFR-Fc (brown circles). Data are the mean of duplicate measurements. Data from individual experiments are shown as faint symbols. e hLIFR-Fc, eLIFR-Fc (bivalent and one-arm), and D25 antibody compete LIF away from WT LIFR. ns not significant, P = 0.03 for one-arm eLIFR-Fc and P = 0.04 for eLIFR-Fc versus hLIFR-Fc, two-tailed unpaired Student’s t test. f Both hLIFR-Fc and eLIFR-Fc (bivalent and one-arm) compete LIF away from WT gp130, but the D25 mAb does not and appears to increase binding, perhaps due to complex stabilization or more avid LIF binding. P = 0.02, ** P = 0.006, or *** P < = 0.0002 versus hLIFR-Fc or eLIFR-Fc (as indicated), two-tailed unpaired Student’s t test. For e and f , data are mean ± SD ( n ≥ 3 independent experiments).
Recombinant Hlif His, supplied by Sino Biological, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 93/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/result/recombinant hlif his/product/Sino Biological
Average 93 stars, based on 1 article reviews
recombinant hlif his - by Bioz Stars, 2026-05
93/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier

93
R&D Systems hlif
a Yeast-displayed eLIFR containing the CBM I–Ig-like–CBM II domains (blue circles) has a slightly higher affinity for LIF-His than eLIFR CBM I–Ig-like domains (gray squares). Data are the mean ± SD of triplicate measurements. Data from individual experiments are shown as faint symbols. b Schematic of hLIFR-Fc and eLIFR-Fc. The three N-terminal domains, CBM I–Ig-like–CBM II, are fused to an hIgG1 Fc-domain, with the engineered Ig-like domain shown in dark teal for eLIFR-Fc. c Versus hLIFR-Fc, eLIFR-Fc remains more strongly bound to yeast-displayed LIF after overnight incubation with soluble LIF competitor, indicating a slower off-rate. * P = 0.024, ** P = 0.0024 versus the corresponding hLIFR-Fc condition, two-tailed unpaired Student’s t test. Data are mean ± SD ( n = 3). d KinExA data showing <t>that</t> <t>recombinant</t> eLIFR-Fc (blue triangles) has higher affinity to soluble <t>hLIF-His</t> than hLIFR-Fc (brown circles). Data are the mean of duplicate measurements. Data from individual experiments are shown as faint symbols. e hLIFR-Fc, eLIFR-Fc (bivalent and one-arm), and D25 antibody compete LIF away from WT LIFR. ns not significant, P = 0.03 for one-arm eLIFR-Fc and P = 0.04 for eLIFR-Fc versus hLIFR-Fc, two-tailed unpaired Student’s t test. f Both hLIFR-Fc and eLIFR-Fc (bivalent and one-arm) compete LIF away from WT gp130, but the D25 mAb does not and appears to increase binding, perhaps due to complex stabilization or more avid LIF binding. P = 0.02, ** P = 0.006, or *** P < = 0.0002 versus hLIFR-Fc or eLIFR-Fc (as indicated), two-tailed unpaired Student’s t test. For e and f , data are mean ± SD ( n ≥ 3 independent experiments).
Hlif, supplied by R&D Systems, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 93/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/result/hlif/product/R&D Systems
Average 93 stars, based on 1 article reviews
hlif - by Bioz Stars, 2026-05
93/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier

90
Thermo Fisher lif recombinant human protein (hlif
a Yeast-displayed eLIFR containing the CBM I–Ig-like–CBM II domains (blue circles) has a slightly higher affinity for LIF-His than eLIFR CBM I–Ig-like domains (gray squares). Data are the mean ± SD of triplicate measurements. Data from individual experiments are shown as faint symbols. b Schematic of hLIFR-Fc and eLIFR-Fc. The three N-terminal domains, CBM I–Ig-like–CBM II, are fused to an hIgG1 Fc-domain, with the engineered Ig-like domain shown in dark teal for eLIFR-Fc. c Versus hLIFR-Fc, eLIFR-Fc remains more strongly bound to yeast-displayed LIF after overnight incubation with soluble LIF competitor, indicating a slower off-rate. * P = 0.024, ** P = 0.0024 versus the corresponding hLIFR-Fc condition, two-tailed unpaired Student’s t test. Data are mean ± SD ( n = 3). d KinExA data showing <t>that</t> <t>recombinant</t> eLIFR-Fc (blue triangles) has higher affinity to soluble <t>hLIF-His</t> than hLIFR-Fc (brown circles). Data are the mean of duplicate measurements. Data from individual experiments are shown as faint symbols. e hLIFR-Fc, eLIFR-Fc (bivalent and one-arm), and D25 antibody compete LIF away from WT LIFR. ns not significant, P = 0.03 for one-arm eLIFR-Fc and P = 0.04 for eLIFR-Fc versus hLIFR-Fc, two-tailed unpaired Student’s t test. f Both hLIFR-Fc and eLIFR-Fc (bivalent and one-arm) compete LIF away from WT gp130, but the D25 mAb does not and appears to increase binding, perhaps due to complex stabilization or more avid LIF binding. P = 0.02, ** P = 0.006, or *** P < = 0.0002 versus hLIFR-Fc or eLIFR-Fc (as indicated), two-tailed unpaired Student’s t test. For e and f , data are mean ± SD ( n ≥ 3 independent experiments).
Lif Recombinant Human Protein (Hlif, supplied by Thermo Fisher, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/result/lif recombinant human protein (hlif/product/Thermo Fisher
Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
lif recombinant human protein (hlif - by Bioz Stars, 2026-05
90/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier

93
Proteintech hlif
a Yeast-displayed eLIFR containing the CBM I–Ig-like–CBM II domains (blue circles) has a slightly higher affinity for LIF-His than eLIFR CBM I–Ig-like domains (gray squares). Data are the mean ± SD of triplicate measurements. Data from individual experiments are shown as faint symbols. b Schematic of hLIFR-Fc and eLIFR-Fc. The three N-terminal domains, CBM I–Ig-like–CBM II, are fused to an hIgG1 Fc-domain, with the engineered Ig-like domain shown in dark teal for eLIFR-Fc. c Versus hLIFR-Fc, eLIFR-Fc remains more strongly bound to yeast-displayed LIF after overnight incubation with soluble LIF competitor, indicating a slower off-rate. * P = 0.024, ** P = 0.0024 versus the corresponding hLIFR-Fc condition, two-tailed unpaired Student’s t test. Data are mean ± SD ( n = 3). d KinExA data showing <t>that</t> <t>recombinant</t> eLIFR-Fc (blue triangles) has higher affinity to soluble <t>hLIF-His</t> than hLIFR-Fc (brown circles). Data are the mean of duplicate measurements. Data from individual experiments are shown as faint symbols. e hLIFR-Fc, eLIFR-Fc (bivalent and one-arm), and D25 antibody compete LIF away from WT LIFR. ns not significant, P = 0.03 for one-arm eLIFR-Fc and P = 0.04 for eLIFR-Fc versus hLIFR-Fc, two-tailed unpaired Student’s t test. f Both hLIFR-Fc and eLIFR-Fc (bivalent and one-arm) compete LIF away from WT gp130, but the D25 mAb does not and appears to increase binding, perhaps due to complex stabilization or more avid LIF binding. P = 0.02, ** P = 0.006, or *** P < = 0.0002 versus hLIFR-Fc or eLIFR-Fc (as indicated), two-tailed unpaired Student’s t test. For e and f , data are mean ± SD ( n ≥ 3 independent experiments).
Hlif, supplied by Proteintech, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 93/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/result/hlif/product/Proteintech
Average 93 stars, based on 1 article reviews
hlif - by Bioz Stars, 2026-05
93/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier

90
PeproTech human lif (hlif)
a Yeast-displayed eLIFR containing the CBM I–Ig-like–CBM II domains (blue circles) has a slightly higher affinity for LIF-His than eLIFR CBM I–Ig-like domains (gray squares). Data are the mean ± SD of triplicate measurements. Data from individual experiments are shown as faint symbols. b Schematic of hLIFR-Fc and eLIFR-Fc. The three N-terminal domains, CBM I–Ig-like–CBM II, are fused to an hIgG1 Fc-domain, with the engineered Ig-like domain shown in dark teal for eLIFR-Fc. c Versus hLIFR-Fc, eLIFR-Fc remains more strongly bound to yeast-displayed LIF after overnight incubation with soluble LIF competitor, indicating a slower off-rate. * P = 0.024, ** P = 0.0024 versus the corresponding hLIFR-Fc condition, two-tailed unpaired Student’s t test. Data are mean ± SD ( n = 3). d KinExA data showing <t>that</t> <t>recombinant</t> eLIFR-Fc (blue triangles) has higher affinity to soluble <t>hLIF-His</t> than hLIFR-Fc (brown circles). Data are the mean of duplicate measurements. Data from individual experiments are shown as faint symbols. e hLIFR-Fc, eLIFR-Fc (bivalent and one-arm), and D25 antibody compete LIF away from WT LIFR. ns not significant, P = 0.03 for one-arm eLIFR-Fc and P = 0.04 for eLIFR-Fc versus hLIFR-Fc, two-tailed unpaired Student’s t test. f Both hLIFR-Fc and eLIFR-Fc (bivalent and one-arm) compete LIF away from WT gp130, but the D25 mAb does not and appears to increase binding, perhaps due to complex stabilization or more avid LIF binding. P = 0.02, ** P = 0.006, or *** P < = 0.0002 versus hLIFR-Fc or eLIFR-Fc (as indicated), two-tailed unpaired Student’s t test. For e and f , data are mean ± SD ( n ≥ 3 independent experiments).
Human Lif (Hlif), supplied by PeproTech, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/result/human lif (hlif)/product/PeproTech
Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
human lif (hlif) - by Bioz Stars, 2026-05
90/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier

90
ORF Genetics human lif (hlif)
a Yeast-displayed eLIFR containing the CBM I–Ig-like–CBM II domains (blue circles) has a slightly higher affinity for LIF-His than eLIFR CBM I–Ig-like domains (gray squares). Data are the mean ± SD of triplicate measurements. Data from individual experiments are shown as faint symbols. b Schematic of hLIFR-Fc and eLIFR-Fc. The three N-terminal domains, CBM I–Ig-like–CBM II, are fused to an hIgG1 Fc-domain, with the engineered Ig-like domain shown in dark teal for eLIFR-Fc. c Versus hLIFR-Fc, eLIFR-Fc remains more strongly bound to yeast-displayed LIF after overnight incubation with soluble LIF competitor, indicating a slower off-rate. * P = 0.024, ** P = 0.0024 versus the corresponding hLIFR-Fc condition, two-tailed unpaired Student’s t test. Data are mean ± SD ( n = 3). d KinExA data showing <t>that</t> <t>recombinant</t> eLIFR-Fc (blue triangles) has higher affinity to soluble <t>hLIF-His</t> than hLIFR-Fc (brown circles). Data are the mean of duplicate measurements. Data from individual experiments are shown as faint symbols. e hLIFR-Fc, eLIFR-Fc (bivalent and one-arm), and D25 antibody compete LIF away from WT LIFR. ns not significant, P = 0.03 for one-arm eLIFR-Fc and P = 0.04 for eLIFR-Fc versus hLIFR-Fc, two-tailed unpaired Student’s t test. f Both hLIFR-Fc and eLIFR-Fc (bivalent and one-arm) compete LIF away from WT gp130, but the D25 mAb does not and appears to increase binding, perhaps due to complex stabilization or more avid LIF binding. P = 0.02, ** P = 0.006, or *** P < = 0.0002 versus hLIFR-Fc or eLIFR-Fc (as indicated), two-tailed unpaired Student’s t test. For e and f , data are mean ± SD ( n ≥ 3 independent experiments).
Human Lif (Hlif), supplied by ORF Genetics, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/result/human lif (hlif)/product/ORF Genetics
Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
human lif (hlif) - by Bioz Stars, 2026-05
90/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier

93
Sino Biological hlif untagged
a Yeast-displayed eLIFR containing the CBM I–Ig-like–CBM II domains (blue circles) has a slightly higher affinity for LIF-His than eLIFR CBM I–Ig-like domains (gray squares). Data are the mean ± SD of triplicate measurements. Data from individual experiments are shown as faint symbols. b Schematic of hLIFR-Fc and eLIFR-Fc. The three N-terminal domains, CBM I–Ig-like–CBM II, are fused to an hIgG1 Fc-domain, with the engineered Ig-like domain shown in dark teal for eLIFR-Fc. c Versus hLIFR-Fc, eLIFR-Fc remains more strongly bound to yeast-displayed LIF after overnight incubation with soluble LIF competitor, indicating a slower off-rate. * P = 0.024, ** P = 0.0024 versus the corresponding hLIFR-Fc condition, two-tailed unpaired Student’s t test. Data are mean ± SD ( n = 3). d KinExA data showing <t>that</t> <t>recombinant</t> eLIFR-Fc (blue triangles) has higher affinity to soluble <t>hLIF-His</t> than hLIFR-Fc (brown circles). Data are the mean of duplicate measurements. Data from individual experiments are shown as faint symbols. e hLIFR-Fc, eLIFR-Fc (bivalent and one-arm), and D25 antibody compete LIF away from WT LIFR. ns not significant, P = 0.03 for one-arm eLIFR-Fc and P = 0.04 for eLIFR-Fc versus hLIFR-Fc, two-tailed unpaired Student’s t test. f Both hLIFR-Fc and eLIFR-Fc (bivalent and one-arm) compete LIF away from WT gp130, but the D25 mAb does not and appears to increase binding, perhaps due to complex stabilization or more avid LIF binding. P = 0.02, ** P = 0.006, or *** P < = 0.0002 versus hLIFR-Fc or eLIFR-Fc (as indicated), two-tailed unpaired Student’s t test. For e and f , data are mean ± SD ( n ≥ 3 independent experiments).
Hlif Untagged, supplied by Sino Biological, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 93/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/result/hlif untagged/product/Sino Biological
Average 93 stars, based on 1 article reviews
hlif untagged - by Bioz Stars, 2026-05
93/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier

90
PeproTech recombinant human lif (hlif)
a Yeast-displayed eLIFR containing the CBM I–Ig-like–CBM II domains (blue circles) has a slightly higher affinity for LIF-His than eLIFR CBM I–Ig-like domains (gray squares). Data are the mean ± SD of triplicate measurements. Data from individual experiments are shown as faint symbols. b Schematic of hLIFR-Fc and eLIFR-Fc. The three N-terminal domains, CBM I–Ig-like–CBM II, are fused to an hIgG1 Fc-domain, with the engineered Ig-like domain shown in dark teal for eLIFR-Fc. c Versus hLIFR-Fc, eLIFR-Fc remains more strongly bound to yeast-displayed LIF after overnight incubation with soluble LIF competitor, indicating a slower off-rate. * P = 0.024, ** P = 0.0024 versus the corresponding hLIFR-Fc condition, two-tailed unpaired Student’s t test. Data are mean ± SD ( n = 3). d KinExA data showing <t>that</t> <t>recombinant</t> eLIFR-Fc (blue triangles) has higher affinity to soluble <t>hLIF-His</t> than hLIFR-Fc (brown circles). Data are the mean of duplicate measurements. Data from individual experiments are shown as faint symbols. e hLIFR-Fc, eLIFR-Fc (bivalent and one-arm), and D25 antibody compete LIF away from WT LIFR. ns not significant, P = 0.03 for one-arm eLIFR-Fc and P = 0.04 for eLIFR-Fc versus hLIFR-Fc, two-tailed unpaired Student’s t test. f Both hLIFR-Fc and eLIFR-Fc (bivalent and one-arm) compete LIF away from WT gp130, but the D25 mAb does not and appears to increase binding, perhaps due to complex stabilization or more avid LIF binding. P = 0.02, ** P = 0.006, or *** P < = 0.0002 versus hLIFR-Fc or eLIFR-Fc (as indicated), two-tailed unpaired Student’s t test. For e and f , data are mean ± SD ( n ≥ 3 independent experiments).
Recombinant Human Lif (Hlif), supplied by PeproTech, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/result/recombinant human lif (hlif)/product/PeproTech
Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
recombinant human lif (hlif) - by Bioz Stars, 2026-05
90/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier

Image Search Results


a Yeast-displayed eLIFR containing the CBM I–Ig-like–CBM II domains (blue circles) has a slightly higher affinity for LIF-His than eLIFR CBM I–Ig-like domains (gray squares). Data are the mean ± SD of triplicate measurements. Data from individual experiments are shown as faint symbols. b Schematic of hLIFR-Fc and eLIFR-Fc. The three N-terminal domains, CBM I–Ig-like–CBM II, are fused to an hIgG1 Fc-domain, with the engineered Ig-like domain shown in dark teal for eLIFR-Fc. c Versus hLIFR-Fc, eLIFR-Fc remains more strongly bound to yeast-displayed LIF after overnight incubation with soluble LIF competitor, indicating a slower off-rate. * P = 0.024, ** P = 0.0024 versus the corresponding hLIFR-Fc condition, two-tailed unpaired Student’s t test. Data are mean ± SD ( n = 3). d KinExA data showing that recombinant eLIFR-Fc (blue triangles) has higher affinity to soluble hLIF-His than hLIFR-Fc (brown circles). Data are the mean of duplicate measurements. Data from individual experiments are shown as faint symbols. e hLIFR-Fc, eLIFR-Fc (bivalent and one-arm), and D25 antibody compete LIF away from WT LIFR. ns not significant, P = 0.03 for one-arm eLIFR-Fc and P = 0.04 for eLIFR-Fc versus hLIFR-Fc, two-tailed unpaired Student’s t test. f Both hLIFR-Fc and eLIFR-Fc (bivalent and one-arm) compete LIF away from WT gp130, but the D25 mAb does not and appears to increase binding, perhaps due to complex stabilization or more avid LIF binding. P = 0.02, ** P = 0.006, or *** P < = 0.0002 versus hLIFR-Fc or eLIFR-Fc (as indicated), two-tailed unpaired Student’s t test. For e and f , data are mean ± SD ( n ≥ 3 independent experiments).

Journal: Communications Biology

Article Title: An engineered ligand trap inhibits leukemia inhibitory factor as pancreatic cancer treatment strategy

doi: 10.1038/s42003-021-01928-2

Figure Lengend Snippet: a Yeast-displayed eLIFR containing the CBM I–Ig-like–CBM II domains (blue circles) has a slightly higher affinity for LIF-His than eLIFR CBM I–Ig-like domains (gray squares). Data are the mean ± SD of triplicate measurements. Data from individual experiments are shown as faint symbols. b Schematic of hLIFR-Fc and eLIFR-Fc. The three N-terminal domains, CBM I–Ig-like–CBM II, are fused to an hIgG1 Fc-domain, with the engineered Ig-like domain shown in dark teal for eLIFR-Fc. c Versus hLIFR-Fc, eLIFR-Fc remains more strongly bound to yeast-displayed LIF after overnight incubation with soluble LIF competitor, indicating a slower off-rate. * P = 0.024, ** P = 0.0024 versus the corresponding hLIFR-Fc condition, two-tailed unpaired Student’s t test. Data are mean ± SD ( n = 3). d KinExA data showing that recombinant eLIFR-Fc (blue triangles) has higher affinity to soluble hLIF-His than hLIFR-Fc (brown circles). Data are the mean of duplicate measurements. Data from individual experiments are shown as faint symbols. e hLIFR-Fc, eLIFR-Fc (bivalent and one-arm), and D25 antibody compete LIF away from WT LIFR. ns not significant, P = 0.03 for one-arm eLIFR-Fc and P = 0.04 for eLIFR-Fc versus hLIFR-Fc, two-tailed unpaired Student’s t test. f Both hLIFR-Fc and eLIFR-Fc (bivalent and one-arm) compete LIF away from WT gp130, but the D25 mAb does not and appears to increase binding, perhaps due to complex stabilization or more avid LIF binding. P = 0.02, ** P = 0.006, or *** P < = 0.0002 versus hLIFR-Fc or eLIFR-Fc (as indicated), two-tailed unpaired Student’s t test. For e and f , data are mean ± SD ( n ≥ 3 independent experiments).

Article Snippet: Recombinant hLIF-His (14890-H08H-20, Sino Biological Inc.), hLIF (untagged) (14890-HNAH-50, Sino Biological Inc.), mLIF-His (ABIN2215872, Antibodies-Online), hOSM-His (10425-H08H-20, Sino Biological Inc.), and hCTF-1-Fc (16013-H01H-20, Sino Biological Inc.) were purchased for use.

Techniques: Incubation, Two Tailed Test, Recombinant, Binding Assay

a Yeast-displayed eLIFR containing the CBM I–Ig-like–CBM II domains (blue circles) has a slightly higher affinity for LIF-His than eLIFR CBM I–Ig-like domains (gray squares). Data are the mean ± SD of triplicate measurements. Data from individual experiments are shown as faint symbols. b Schematic of hLIFR-Fc and eLIFR-Fc. The three N-terminal domains, CBM I–Ig-like–CBM II, are fused to an hIgG1 Fc-domain, with the engineered Ig-like domain shown in dark teal for eLIFR-Fc. c Versus hLIFR-Fc, eLIFR-Fc remains more strongly bound to yeast-displayed LIF after overnight incubation with soluble LIF competitor, indicating a slower off-rate. * P = 0.024, ** P = 0.0024 versus the corresponding hLIFR-Fc condition, two-tailed unpaired Student’s t test. Data are mean ± SD ( n = 3). d KinExA data showing that recombinant eLIFR-Fc (blue triangles) has higher affinity to soluble hLIF-His than hLIFR-Fc (brown circles). Data are the mean of duplicate measurements. Data from individual experiments are shown as faint symbols. e hLIFR-Fc, eLIFR-Fc (bivalent and one-arm), and D25 antibody compete LIF away from WT LIFR. ns not significant, P = 0.03 for one-arm eLIFR-Fc and P = 0.04 for eLIFR-Fc versus hLIFR-Fc, two-tailed unpaired Student’s t test. f Both hLIFR-Fc and eLIFR-Fc (bivalent and one-arm) compete LIF away from WT gp130, but the D25 mAb does not and appears to increase binding, perhaps due to complex stabilization or more avid LIF binding. P = 0.02, ** P = 0.006, or *** P < = 0.0002 versus hLIFR-Fc or eLIFR-Fc (as indicated), two-tailed unpaired Student’s t test. For e and f , data are mean ± SD ( n ≥ 3 independent experiments).

Journal: Communications Biology

Article Title: An engineered ligand trap inhibits leukemia inhibitory factor as pancreatic cancer treatment strategy

doi: 10.1038/s42003-021-01928-2

Figure Lengend Snippet: a Yeast-displayed eLIFR containing the CBM I–Ig-like–CBM II domains (blue circles) has a slightly higher affinity for LIF-His than eLIFR CBM I–Ig-like domains (gray squares). Data are the mean ± SD of triplicate measurements. Data from individual experiments are shown as faint symbols. b Schematic of hLIFR-Fc and eLIFR-Fc. The three N-terminal domains, CBM I–Ig-like–CBM II, are fused to an hIgG1 Fc-domain, with the engineered Ig-like domain shown in dark teal for eLIFR-Fc. c Versus hLIFR-Fc, eLIFR-Fc remains more strongly bound to yeast-displayed LIF after overnight incubation with soluble LIF competitor, indicating a slower off-rate. * P = 0.024, ** P = 0.0024 versus the corresponding hLIFR-Fc condition, two-tailed unpaired Student’s t test. Data are mean ± SD ( n = 3). d KinExA data showing that recombinant eLIFR-Fc (blue triangles) has higher affinity to soluble hLIF-His than hLIFR-Fc (brown circles). Data are the mean of duplicate measurements. Data from individual experiments are shown as faint symbols. e hLIFR-Fc, eLIFR-Fc (bivalent and one-arm), and D25 antibody compete LIF away from WT LIFR. ns not significant, P = 0.03 for one-arm eLIFR-Fc and P = 0.04 for eLIFR-Fc versus hLIFR-Fc, two-tailed unpaired Student’s t test. f Both hLIFR-Fc and eLIFR-Fc (bivalent and one-arm) compete LIF away from WT gp130, but the D25 mAb does not and appears to increase binding, perhaps due to complex stabilization or more avid LIF binding. P = 0.02, ** P = 0.006, or *** P < = 0.0002 versus hLIFR-Fc or eLIFR-Fc (as indicated), two-tailed unpaired Student’s t test. For e and f , data are mean ± SD ( n ≥ 3 independent experiments).

Article Snippet: Recombinant hLIF-His (14890-H08H-20, Sino Biological Inc.), hLIF (untagged) (14890-HNAH-50, Sino Biological Inc.), mLIF-His (ABIN2215872, Antibodies-Online), hOSM-His (10425-H08H-20, Sino Biological Inc.), and hCTF-1-Fc (16013-H01H-20, Sino Biological Inc.) were purchased for use.

Techniques: Incubation, Two Tailed Test, Recombinant, Binding Assay