human vimentin elisa kit (Cusabio)
Structured Review

Human Vimentin Elisa Kit, supplied by Cusabio, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 93/100, based on 5 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/result/human vimentin elisa kit/product/Cusabio
Average 93 stars, based on 5 article reviews
Images
1) Product Images from "Triad of homocysteine, ROCK2 and vimentin as a convergent biomarker signature in pseudoexfoliation"
Article Title: Triad of homocysteine, ROCK2 and vimentin as a convergent biomarker signature in pseudoexfoliation
Journal: Journal of Translational Medicine
doi: 10.1186/s12967-025-07437-8
Figure Legend Snippet: Plasma levels of homocysteine, ROCK2, and vimentin in pseudoexfoliation syndrome and glaucoma. Column scatter plots display quantified plasma concentrations of ( A ) Hcy, ( B ) ROCK2, and ( C ) VIM which were significantly higher in the PEX (PEXS + PEXG) group ( n = 48), as well as in both PEXS and PEXG subgroups ( n = 24 each), compared to controls ( n = 24). Kruskal–Wallis tests revealed significant group-wise differences for all markers ( p < 0.001 for Hcy and VIM, p = 0.001 for ROCK2). Dunn’s post hoc test confirmed elevated levels in PEXS and PEXG vs. controls ( p < 0.01), with no significant differences between the two PEX subgroups. Data are presented as mean ± SD
Techniques Used: Clinical Proteomics
Figure Legend Snippet: Distribution analysis and effect sizes of plasma biomarkers across study groups. ( A–C ) Q–Q plots display the distribution of plasma Hcy, ROCK2, and VIM levels in Control, PEXS, and PEXG groups relative to a theoretical normal distribution. Deviations from the reference line (y = x) indicate non-normality. ( D ) Violin plots show biomarker distribution and effect sizes across group comparisons: Control vs. PEX group, Control vs. PEXS, Control vs. PEXG, and PEXS vs. PEXG. Boxplots indicate medians and interquartile ranges. Cohen’s d values quantify effect sizes. Hcy and VIM showed large effects and consistent upregulation across disease groups, while ROCK2 showed moderate elevation. Minimal separation was observed between PEXS and PEXG for all markers
Techniques Used: Clinical Proteomics, Control, Biomarker Discovery
Figure Legend Snippet: Receiver operating characteristic curves (ROC) of plasma homocysteine, ROCK2, and Vimentin for distinguishing PEXS and PEXG from control subjects. ( A - C ) Hcy showed excellent diagnostic performance with AUCs of 0.98 (95% CI: 0.95–1.00) for Control vs. PEX (PEXS + PEXG), 0.98 (95% CI: 0.95–1.00) for Control vs. PEXS, and 0.97 (95% CI: 0.92–1.00) for Control vs. PEXG. Optimal cut-off values were > 15.09 µmol/L, > 15.19 µmol/L, and > 21.40 µmol/L, respectively. (D-F) ROC analysis of ROCK2 yielded AUCs of 0.77 (95% CI: 0.66–0.88), 0.74 (95% CI: 0.60–0.88), and 0.80 (95% CI: 0.68–0.93) for Control vs. PEX (PEXS + PEXG), PEXS, and PEXG, with corresponding cut-offs of > 375.1 pg/mL, > 378.5 pg/mL, and > 353.1 pg/mL. (G-I) VIM showed AUCs of 0.94 (95% CI: 0.88–0.99), 0.89 (95% CI: 0.79–0.99), and 0.99 (95% CI: 0.97–1.00) for Control vs. PEX (PEXS + PEXG), PEXS, and PEXG, with optimal cut-offs of > 484.60 pg/mL, > 467.30 pg/mL, and > 486.30 pg/mL, respectively
Techniques Used: Clinical Proteomics, Control, Diagnostic Assay
Figure Legend Snippet: Correlation analyses between homocysteine, ROCK2, and Vimentin. ( A ) Global correlation matrix for all the study subjects shows strong positive correlation between expression of Hcy and ROCK2 (ρ = 0.62), ROCK2 and VIM (ρ = 0.69), VIM and Hcy (ρ = 0.79). ( B ) Stratified correlation analysis showing preservation of associations within individual groups with varying strength. ( C ) Dot plot displaying Spearman correlation coefficients (ρ) for each biomarker pair: ROCK2 and VIM, ROCK2 and Hcy, and VIM and Hcy across the three study groups. Strong positive correlations were observed among all pairs in PEXS and PEXG, while correlations in the control group were weak or absent. Notably, the correlation between ROCK2 and VIM increases in PEXS but declines in PEXG. In contrast, the strength of association between Hcy and both ROCK2 and VIM increases progressively from PEXS to PEXG. The dashed line at ρ = 0 indicates no correlation
Techniques Used: Expressing, Preserving, Biomarker Discovery, Control
Figure Legend Snippet: Effect of elevated homocysteine on ROCK2 and VIM in HLE-B3 cells. ( A - B ) Representative immunoblots showing ROCK2 and VIM protein levels in HLE-B3 cells treated with 0 (Vehicle Control), 500 µM, or 1000 µM Hcy for 48 h. GAPDH was used as a loading control. ( C – D ) Quantitative densitometric analysis of ROCK2 ( C ) and VIM ( D ) normalized to GAPDH. Data are presented as mean ± SD from five independent biological replicates ( n = 5). Treatment with Hcy led to a concentration-dependent increase in expression of both markers. Statistical analysis was performed using the Mann–Whitney U test. Significance is indicated as follows: p < 0.05 (*), and p < 0.01 (**)
Techniques Used: Western Blot, Control, Concentration Assay, Expressing, MANN-WHITNEY
Figure Legend Snippet: Diagnostic performance of two-marker and three-marker biomarker models. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves comparing the classification performance of different biomarker combinations for diagnostic accuracy. ( A ) Two-marker model with Hcy and VIM achieved an AUC of 0.98 (95% CI: 0.95–1.00), a cut-off of 0.80, sensitivity of 0.91, and specificity of 0.83. ( B ) Two-marker model with Hcy and ROCK2 showed an AUC of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.94–1.00), with a cut-off of 0.48, sensitivity of 0.94, and specificity of 0.83. ( C ) Two-marker model with VIM and ROCK2 resulted in an AUC of 0.94 (95% CI: 0.88–0.99), a cut-off of 0.47, sensitivity of 0.88, and specificity of 0.80. ( D ) Three-marker model combining Hcy, ROCK2, and VIM yielded comparable diagnostic performance, with an AUC of 0.98 (95% CI: 0.96–1.00), but with a balanced cut-off score of 0.77, sensitivity of 0.94, and specificity of 0.88
Techniques Used: Diagnostic Assay, Marker, Biomarker Discovery
Figure Legend Snippet: Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves for individual and combined biomarker models distinguishing study groups. ( A ) Control vs. PEX (PEXS + PEXG), ( B ) Control vs. PEXS, ( C ) Control vs. PEXG, ( D ) PEXS vs. PEXG. Each panel shows ROC curves for models based on individual biomarkers: Homocysteine (blue), ROCK2 (orange), Vimentin (green), and a combined LASSO logistic regression model (red). LASSO models were trained using repeated 5-fold cross-validation, and optimism-corrected AUCs were estimated using 1000 bootstrap replicates. AUC values are displayed within each panel
Techniques Used: Biomarker Discovery, Control
Figure Legend Snippet: Calibration and clinical utility of the combined biomarker prediction model. ( A ) Calibration plot for the logistic regression model combining Hcy, ROCK2, and VIM. The x-axis shows predicted disease probability, and the y-axis indicates observed frequency. The navy-blue curve represents the bias-corrected calibration (1000 bootstrap resamples); the diagonal grey dashed line indicates perfect prediction. The model demonstrated good calibration, with a mean absolute error of 0.04 and a mean squared error of 0.003. ( B ) Decision Curve Analysis (DCA) assessing the net clinical benefit of the combined biomarker model. The standardized net benefit is plotted against a range of threshold probabilities. The blue line denotes the biomarker model; the red dashed and gray lines represent the “Treat All” and “Treat None” strategies, respectively. The model shows superior net benefit across the clinically relevant threshold range (0.1–0.8), supporting its potential for individualized, risk-based decision-making
Techniques Used: Biomarker Discovery
Figure Legend Snippet: k-Means (k = 3) clustering of subjects based on biomarker profiles and mean biomarker expression based on z-score. ( A ) PCA plot showing three clusters derived from k-means clustering of standardized Hcy, ROCK2, and VIM values. Clusters show differential enrichment of disease states, with Cluster 3 predominantly composed of controls, Cluster 1 enriched in PEXS, and Cluster 2 enriched in PEXG. Subjects are coloured by disease status and shaped by cluster label. The ellipses represent the 95% confidence boundaries for each cluster. ( B ) Mean biomarker expression (z-score ± SEM) across three unsupervised clusters. Cluster 2 shows coordinated upregulation of Hcy, ROCK2, and VIM, consistent with advanced disease (PEXG). Cluster 3 exhibits downregulated expression typical of controls. Cluster 1 shows mild elevations, suggesting early disease activity (PEXS)
Techniques Used: Biomarker Discovery, Expressing, Derivative Assay, Activity Assay
Figure Legend Snippet: Integrated pathway enrichment analysis of homocysteine, VIM, and ROCK2. ( A ) Bubble plot showing significantly enriched pathways based on –log₁₀(p-value) and pathway impact. Bubble size reflects the number of matched features; colour indicates functional categories. Key pathways highlight redox imbalance, cytoskeletal disruption, and vascular dysfunction. ( B ) Clustered bar plot grouping enriched pathways ( p < 0.05) into functional categories. The most enriched categories were methylation/redox metabolism, cytoskeletal remodelling, and immune signaling, suggesting a central role for metabolic and mechanical stress in PEX pathogenesis
Techniques Used: Functional Assay, Disruption, Methylation
Figure Legend Snippet: STITCH network of PEX-associated genes and homocysteine metabolism. The network includes VIM, ROCK2, their interactors, and homocysteine-metabolizing enzymes. Nodes represent proteins/metabolites; edges indicate functional associations. Distinct modules include cytoskeletal/adhesion (VIM, ROCK1/2, RHOA), methylation/redox (MTHFR, CBS, DNMTs), TGF-β/WNT signaling (TGFB1, ZEB1/2, CTNNB1), and stress response (CASP3, HSPA1A, UBB), illustrating converging pathways in PEX pathogenesis
Techniques Used: Functional Assay, Methylation
Figure Legend Snippet: SP1 as a key transcriptional regulator in Pseudoexfoliation. ( A ) Transcription factor enrichment using TRRUST and ChEA3 identified SP1 as a top-scoring regulator of PEX-associated genes ( B–C ). In silico prediction of putative SP1 binding sites performed within the proximal promoter regions (− 1500 bp upstream of the TSS) of VIM and ROCK2 using the UCSC Genome Browser and JASPAR (motif MA0079.3)
Techniques Used: In Silico, Binding Assay
Fig. S4E ). (E) 3T3-L1 cells differentiated in the presence or absence of 20 µM PGE2 and the kinase inhibitors H89 (10 µM) or GSK429286A (1 µM) during the first 48 h of adipogenesis. Both inhibitors rescue adipogenesis in the presence of PGE2 and inhibit