Review



mouse egf concentrations  (Cusabio)


Bioz Verified Symbol Cusabio is a verified supplier
Bioz Manufacturer Symbol Cusabio manufactures this product  
  • Logo
  • About
  • News
  • Press Release
  • Team
  • Advisors
  • Partners
  • Contact
  • Bioz Stars
  • Bioz vStars
    • 93
      Buy from Supplier

    Structured Review

    Cusabio mouse egf concentrations
    Preparation and evaluation of the receiving layer of TeeBN. (A) Schematic of receiving layer. Inset images showed the positional relationship: The blue upper layer is the feeding layer, and the white lower layer indicated by the orange arrow is the receiving layer. The table showed the main components of the receiving layer. (B) Dot blotting analysis of the binding between HA with different molecular weight and <t>EGF</t> with different concentration. (C) The EFG level after enzyme digested. **** P < 0.0001, n.s. means not significant (n = 5). (D) SEM image of EBN and (E) TeeBN. Scale bar, 100 μm. (F) The total protein content. ** P < 0.01 and **** P < 0.0001 (n = 5). (G) The total EGF content. **** P < 0.0001 (n = 5). (H) The total sialic acid content. **** P < 0.0001 (n = 5). (I) The total nitrite content. **** P < 0.0001 (n = 5). (J) The heavy metal As (J), Pb (K), and Cu (L) content. ** P < 0.01 and **** P < 0.0001 (n = 3). All results were analyzed with one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s post-hoc multiple comparisons tests in GraphPad Prism 8 and expressed as mean ± SD. Results of TeeBN vs. EBN-V and TeeBN vs. EBN-I are show in Figures F to L.
    Mouse Egf Concentrations, supplied by Cusabio, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 93/100, based on 2 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/mouse egf concentrations/product/Cusabio
    Average 93 stars, based on 2 article reviews
    mouse egf concentrations - by Bioz Stars, 2026-03
    93/100 stars

    Images

    1) Product Images from "Tissue-engineered edible bird’s nests (TeeBN)"

    Article Title: Tissue-engineered edible bird’s nests (TeeBN)

    Journal: International Journal of Bioprinting

    doi: 10.18063/ijb.691

    Preparation and evaluation of the receiving layer of TeeBN. (A) Schematic of receiving layer. Inset images showed the positional relationship: The blue upper layer is the feeding layer, and the white lower layer indicated by the orange arrow is the receiving layer. The table showed the main components of the receiving layer. (B) Dot blotting analysis of the binding between HA with different molecular weight and EGF with different concentration. (C) The EFG level after enzyme digested. **** P < 0.0001, n.s. means not significant (n = 5). (D) SEM image of EBN and (E) TeeBN. Scale bar, 100 μm. (F) The total protein content. ** P < 0.01 and **** P < 0.0001 (n = 5). (G) The total EGF content. **** P < 0.0001 (n = 5). (H) The total sialic acid content. **** P < 0.0001 (n = 5). (I) The total nitrite content. **** P < 0.0001 (n = 5). (J) The heavy metal As (J), Pb (K), and Cu (L) content. ** P < 0.01 and **** P < 0.0001 (n = 3). All results were analyzed with one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s post-hoc multiple comparisons tests in GraphPad Prism 8 and expressed as mean ± SD. Results of TeeBN vs. EBN-V and TeeBN vs. EBN-I are show in Figures F to L.
    Figure Legend Snippet: Preparation and evaluation of the receiving layer of TeeBN. (A) Schematic of receiving layer. Inset images showed the positional relationship: The blue upper layer is the feeding layer, and the white lower layer indicated by the orange arrow is the receiving layer. The table showed the main components of the receiving layer. (B) Dot blotting analysis of the binding between HA with different molecular weight and EGF with different concentration. (C) The EFG level after enzyme digested. **** P < 0.0001, n.s. means not significant (n = 5). (D) SEM image of EBN and (E) TeeBN. Scale bar, 100 μm. (F) The total protein content. ** P < 0.01 and **** P < 0.0001 (n = 5). (G) The total EGF content. **** P < 0.0001 (n = 5). (H) The total sialic acid content. **** P < 0.0001 (n = 5). (I) The total nitrite content. **** P < 0.0001 (n = 5). (J) The heavy metal As (J), Pb (K), and Cu (L) content. ** P < 0.01 and **** P < 0.0001 (n = 3). All results were analyzed with one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s post-hoc multiple comparisons tests in GraphPad Prism 8 and expressed as mean ± SD. Results of TeeBN vs. EBN-V and TeeBN vs. EBN-I are show in Figures F to L.

    Techniques Used: Binding Assay, Molecular Weight, Concentration Assay



    Similar Products

    egf concentrations  (R&D Systems)
    93
    R&D Systems egf concentrations
    Egf Concentrations, 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/egf concentrations/product/R&D Systems
    Average 93 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    egf concentrations - by Bioz Stars, 2026-03
    93/100 stars
    		  Buy from Supplier
    mouse egf concentrations  (Cusabio)
    93
    Cusabio mouse egf concentrations
    Preparation and evaluation of the receiving layer of TeeBN. (A) Schematic of receiving layer. Inset images showed the positional relationship: The blue upper layer is the feeding layer, and the white lower layer indicated by the orange arrow is the receiving layer. The table showed the main components of the receiving layer. (B) Dot blotting analysis of the binding between HA with different molecular weight and <t>EGF</t> with different concentration. (C) The EFG level after enzyme digested. **** P < 0.0001, n.s. means not significant (n = 5). (D) SEM image of EBN and (E) TeeBN. Scale bar, 100 μm. (F) The total protein content. ** P < 0.01 and **** P < 0.0001 (n = 5). (G) The total EGF content. **** P < 0.0001 (n = 5). (H) The total sialic acid content. **** P < 0.0001 (n = 5). (I) The total nitrite content. **** P < 0.0001 (n = 5). (J) The heavy metal As (J), Pb (K), and Cu (L) content. ** P < 0.01 and **** P < 0.0001 (n = 3). All results were analyzed with one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s post-hoc multiple comparisons tests in GraphPad Prism 8 and expressed as mean ± SD. Results of TeeBN vs. EBN-V and TeeBN vs. EBN-I are show in Figures F to L.
    Mouse Egf Concentrations, supplied by Cusabio, 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/mouse egf concentrations/product/Cusabio
    Average 93 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    mouse egf concentrations - by Bioz Stars, 2026-03
    93/100 stars
    		  Buy from Supplier
    egf concentrations  (Cusabio)
    93
    Cusabio egf concentrations
    Figure 4: Detection of key soluble morphogens in the system of sweat gland morphogenesis and the impact of BMP receptor inhibitor and <t>EGF</t> receptor inhibitor on sweat gland development in <t>vitro.</t> <t>BMP4</t> and EGF demonstrated sharped difference in the medium of the sweat gland organogenesis system. BMP receptor inhibitor could block the formation of sweat gland in this system, while EGF receptor inhibitor significantly reduced the expression of K18. (a) The variation tendency of BMP4 and EGF in the medium of system. The error bar meant the standard error of BMP4 and EGF concentrations in different systems at different time points. (b) The impact of BMP receptor inhibitor and EFG receptor inhibitor on sweat gland morphogenesis. In comparison with the control group, EGF receptor inhibitor significantly reduced the expression of K18, but glandular structure was still observed. BMP receptor inhibitor completely blocks the expression of K18, and no glandular structure was observed. All the nuclei were counterstained with DAPI (DAPI: blue; K18: red; bars = 200 μm and 50 μm; K18: cytokeratin 18; IM: light microscope; H&E: hematoxylin-eosin staining; IF: immunofluorescence staining).
    Egf Concentrations, supplied by Cusabio, 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/egf concentrations/product/Cusabio
    Average 93 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    egf concentrations - by Bioz Stars, 2026-03
    93/100 stars
    		  Buy from Supplier

    Image Search Results


    Preparation and evaluation of the receiving layer of TeeBN. (A) Schematic of receiving layer. Inset images showed the positional relationship: The blue upper layer is the feeding layer, and the white lower layer indicated by the orange arrow is the receiving layer. The table showed the main components of the receiving layer. (B) Dot blotting analysis of the binding between HA with different molecular weight and EGF with different concentration. (C) The EFG level after enzyme digested. **** P < 0.0001, n.s. means not significant (n = 5). (D) SEM image of EBN and (E) TeeBN. Scale bar, 100 μm. (F) The total protein content. ** P < 0.01 and **** P < 0.0001 (n = 5). (G) The total EGF content. **** P < 0.0001 (n = 5). (H) The total sialic acid content. **** P < 0.0001 (n = 5). (I) The total nitrite content. **** P < 0.0001 (n = 5). (J) The heavy metal As (J), Pb (K), and Cu (L) content. ** P < 0.01 and **** P < 0.0001 (n = 3). All results were analyzed with one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s post-hoc multiple comparisons tests in GraphPad Prism 8 and expressed as mean ± SD. Results of TeeBN vs. EBN-V and TeeBN vs. EBN-I are show in Figures F to L.

    Journal: International Journal of Bioprinting

    Article Title: Tissue-engineered edible bird’s nests (TeeBN)

    doi: 10.18063/ijb.691

    Figure Lengend Snippet: Preparation and evaluation of the receiving layer of TeeBN. (A) Schematic of receiving layer. Inset images showed the positional relationship: The blue upper layer is the feeding layer, and the white lower layer indicated by the orange arrow is the receiving layer. The table showed the main components of the receiving layer. (B) Dot blotting analysis of the binding between HA with different molecular weight and EGF with different concentration. (C) The EFG level after enzyme digested. **** P < 0.0001, n.s. means not significant (n = 5). (D) SEM image of EBN and (E) TeeBN. Scale bar, 100 μm. (F) The total protein content. ** P < 0.01 and **** P < 0.0001 (n = 5). (G) The total EGF content. **** P < 0.0001 (n = 5). (H) The total sialic acid content. **** P < 0.0001 (n = 5). (I) The total nitrite content. **** P < 0.0001 (n = 5). (J) The heavy metal As (J), Pb (K), and Cu (L) content. ** P < 0.01 and **** P < 0.0001 (n = 3). All results were analyzed with one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s post-hoc multiple comparisons tests in GraphPad Prism 8 and expressed as mean ± SD. Results of TeeBN vs. EBN-V and TeeBN vs. EBN-I are show in Figures F to L.

    Article Snippet: Mouse EGF concentrations were determined by the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay kit (ELISA; Cusabio, Wuhan, China).

    Techniques: Binding Assay, Molecular Weight, Concentration Assay

    Figure 4: Detection of key soluble morphogens in the system of sweat gland morphogenesis and the impact of BMP receptor inhibitor and EGF receptor inhibitor on sweat gland development in vitro. BMP4 and EGF demonstrated sharped difference in the medium of the sweat gland organogenesis system. BMP receptor inhibitor could block the formation of sweat gland in this system, while EGF receptor inhibitor significantly reduced the expression of K18. (a) The variation tendency of BMP4 and EGF in the medium of system. The error bar meant the standard error of BMP4 and EGF concentrations in different systems at different time points. (b) The impact of BMP receptor inhibitor and EFG receptor inhibitor on sweat gland morphogenesis. In comparison with the control group, EGF receptor inhibitor significantly reduced the expression of K18, but glandular structure was still observed. BMP receptor inhibitor completely blocks the expression of K18, and no glandular structure was observed. All the nuclei were counterstained with DAPI (DAPI: blue; K18: red; bars = 200 μm and 50 μm; K18: cytokeratin 18; IM: light microscope; H&E: hematoxylin-eosin staining; IF: immunofluorescence staining).

    Journal: Stem cells international

    Article Title: Developing a Novel and Convenient Model for Investigating Sweat Gland Morphogenesis from Epidermal Stem Cells.

    doi: 10.1155/2019/4254759

    Figure Lengend Snippet: Figure 4: Detection of key soluble morphogens in the system of sweat gland morphogenesis and the impact of BMP receptor inhibitor and EGF receptor inhibitor on sweat gland development in vitro. BMP4 and EGF demonstrated sharped difference in the medium of the sweat gland organogenesis system. BMP receptor inhibitor could block the formation of sweat gland in this system, while EGF receptor inhibitor significantly reduced the expression of K18. (a) The variation tendency of BMP4 and EGF in the medium of system. The error bar meant the standard error of BMP4 and EGF concentrations in different systems at different time points. (b) The impact of BMP receptor inhibitor and EFG receptor inhibitor on sweat gland morphogenesis. In comparison with the control group, EGF receptor inhibitor significantly reduced the expression of K18, but glandular structure was still observed. BMP receptor inhibitor completely blocks the expression of K18, and no glandular structure was observed. All the nuclei were counterstained with DAPI (DAPI: blue; K18: red; bars = 200 μm and 50 μm; K18: cytokeratin 18; IM: light microscope; H&E: hematoxylin-eosin staining; IF: immunofluorescence staining).

    Article Snippet: BMP4 and EGF concentrations in supernatant were measured using a mouse BMP4 (CSB-E04512m, Cusabio, Wuhan, Hubei, China) and EGF ELISA kit (EM014-96, ExCell Bio, Shanghai, China).

    Techniques: In Vitro, Blocking Assay, Expressing, Comparison, Control, Light Microscopy, Staining