anticd133 alexa fluor 488 Search Results


anti cd133  (Bioss)
92
Bioss anti cd133
Anti Cd133, supplied by Bioss, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 92/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/product/anticd133+alexa+fluor+488/CD133+Polyclonal+Antibody%2C+ALEXA+FLUOR+488+Conjugated/pm27237706-58-1-3
Average 92 stars, based on 1 article reviews
anti cd133 - by Bioz Stars, 2026-09
92/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier
alexa fluor 488 conjugated anti cd133  (Novus Biologicals)
94
Novus Biologicals alexa fluor 488 conjugated anti cd133
Alexa Fluor 488 Conjugated Anti Cd133, 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/product/anticd133+alexa+fluor+488/CD133+Antibody+%5BAlexa+Fluor%C2%AE+488%5D/pm38311876-66-16-21
Average 94 stars, based on 1 article reviews
alexa fluor 488 conjugated anti cd133 - by Bioz Stars, 2026-09
94/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier
anti cd133 alexa fluor 488  (R&D Systems)
94
R&D Systems anti cd133 alexa fluor 488
(A) Single nanoparticle analysis by nanoFCM shows the expression of CNS markers (ATP1B2 and EAAT2) in breast cancer cell line MDAMB231 (-ve) and WK1 sEVs. Average histogram measurements are the average expression of 3 GBM cell line sEVs (WK1, BAH1, FPW1). (B) Single nanoparticle analysis by nanoFCM shows the expression of GSC markers (CD24, EGFR, CD44, and <t>CD133)</t> as representative nanoFCM images and average histogram measurements in three GBM cell lines. (C) Representative Raman images for all of marker’s detection in GBM cell lines using GEMPAC. Scale bar = 10 µm. (D) Raman intensity measurements of sEVs from each GBM cell line with different SERS nanotags; DTNB-ATP1B2 (red), MBA-EAAT2 (blue), TFMBA-CD44 (green), MPY-CD133 (yellow), TFMBA-EGFR (purple) and MPY-CD24 (grey). MDA-MB-231 breast cancer cells and EV-free medium were used as negative controls to show biomarker specificity. Data are represented as mean ± standard error.
Anti Cd133 Alexa Fluor 488, supplied by R&D Systems, 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/product/anticd133+alexa+fluor+488/Human+CD133+Alexa+Fluor%C2%AE+488-conjugated+Antibody/med_rxiv__2024__09__23__24314250-184-39-44
Average 94 stars, based on 1 article reviews
anti cd133 alexa fluor 488 - by Bioz Stars, 2026-09
94/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier

Image Search Results


(A) Single nanoparticle analysis by nanoFCM shows the expression of CNS markers (ATP1B2 and EAAT2) in breast cancer cell line MDAMB231 (-ve) and WK1 sEVs. Average histogram measurements are the average expression of 3 GBM cell line sEVs (WK1, BAH1, FPW1). (B) Single nanoparticle analysis by nanoFCM shows the expression of GSC markers (CD24, EGFR, CD44, and CD133) as representative nanoFCM images and average histogram measurements in three GBM cell lines. (C) Representative Raman images for all of marker’s detection in GBM cell lines using GEMPAC. Scale bar = 10 µm. (D) Raman intensity measurements of sEVs from each GBM cell line with different SERS nanotags; DTNB-ATP1B2 (red), MBA-EAAT2 (blue), TFMBA-CD44 (green), MPY-CD133 (yellow), TFMBA-EGFR (purple) and MPY-CD24 (grey). MDA-MB-231 breast cancer cells and EV-free medium were used as negative controls to show biomarker specificity. Data are represented as mean ± standard error.

Journal: medRxiv

Article Title: Longitudinal Monitoring of Glioblastoma Small Extracellular Vesicle Evolution Using a Nanodiagnostic to Detect Emergence of Glioma Stem Cells Driving Recurrent Disease

doi: 10.1101/2024.09.23.24314250

Figure Lengend Snippet: (A) Single nanoparticle analysis by nanoFCM shows the expression of CNS markers (ATP1B2 and EAAT2) in breast cancer cell line MDAMB231 (-ve) and WK1 sEVs. Average histogram measurements are the average expression of 3 GBM cell line sEVs (WK1, BAH1, FPW1). (B) Single nanoparticle analysis by nanoFCM shows the expression of GSC markers (CD24, EGFR, CD44, and CD133) as representative nanoFCM images and average histogram measurements in three GBM cell lines. (C) Representative Raman images for all of marker’s detection in GBM cell lines using GEMPAC. Scale bar = 10 µm. (D) Raman intensity measurements of sEVs from each GBM cell line with different SERS nanotags; DTNB-ATP1B2 (red), MBA-EAAT2 (blue), TFMBA-CD44 (green), MPY-CD133 (yellow), TFMBA-EGFR (purple) and MPY-CD24 (grey). MDA-MB-231 breast cancer cells and EV-free medium were used as negative controls to show biomarker specificity. Data are represented as mean ± standard error.

Article Snippet: Approximately 1 × 10 9 total sEV particles were incubated with either anti-ATP1B2 (PA526279, Thermo Fisher Scientific), anti-EAAT2 (NOVNBP120136, Novus), anti-CD9 APC (17-0098-42, Thermo Fisher Scientific), anti-CD24 (ab134375, Abcam), anti-EGFR (ab231, Abcam), anti-CD44 Alexa Fluor 488 (103016, BioLegend), or anti-CD133 Alexa Fluor 488 (FAB11331G, R&D Systems) in 50 µL of PBS, for 1 h at 37 °C.

Techniques: Expressing, Biomarker Assay

(A) GBM patient samples (n = 36) sEV size distribution. (B) GBM sEV concentration in pre-op and post-op. (C) Raman intensity measurements of each marker with SERS images in pre-op and post-op in the representative GBM patient, DTNB-ATP1B2 (red), MBA-EAAT2 (blue), TFMBA-CD44 (green), MPY-CD133 (yellow), TFMBA-EGFR (purple), and MPY-CD24 (grey). Data are represented as mean ± standard error (n = 4). (D) All the GBM stem cell markers were normalized by CNS markers and sum as GEMPAC score. Comparison of GEMPAC score between pre-op and post-op. The proportion of each normalized GSC marker in (E) pre-op and (F) post-op. Kaplan-Meier plots of overall survival by GEMPAC score. Survival outcome differences in pre-op (G) and post-op (H). (I) ROC curve analysis for GEMPAC score between short and long overall survival groups. Next, we investigated if the GEMPAC score was able to predict overall survival in a cohort of 24 patients who received only standard care temozolomide (TMZ) and radiotherapy (RT). Patients were categorized into either high (> median GEMPAC score) or low (< median GEMPAC score) groups. Before surgical resection there was no correlation in overall survival (p = 0.4936) , however, after surgical resection, patients with a high GEMPAC score had significantly shorter survival compared to patients with a low GEMPAC score (p = 0.0055) . To investigate the sensitivity and specificity of the GEMPAC score for predicting overall survival, a 1-year overall survival was assessed by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. In this context, the area under the curve (AUC) for predicting overall survival after surgical resection (post-op) was 0.79 (95% CI 0.6-0.98) . These results indicate the GEMPAC score from circulating GBM sEVs could predict patients’ survival after surgery, likely reflecting the remaining tumor burden after surgical resection which is a predictor of survival after resection.

Journal: medRxiv

Article Title: Longitudinal Monitoring of Glioblastoma Small Extracellular Vesicle Evolution Using a Nanodiagnostic to Detect Emergence of Glioma Stem Cells Driving Recurrent Disease

doi: 10.1101/2024.09.23.24314250

Figure Lengend Snippet: (A) GBM patient samples (n = 36) sEV size distribution. (B) GBM sEV concentration in pre-op and post-op. (C) Raman intensity measurements of each marker with SERS images in pre-op and post-op in the representative GBM patient, DTNB-ATP1B2 (red), MBA-EAAT2 (blue), TFMBA-CD44 (green), MPY-CD133 (yellow), TFMBA-EGFR (purple), and MPY-CD24 (grey). Data are represented as mean ± standard error (n = 4). (D) All the GBM stem cell markers were normalized by CNS markers and sum as GEMPAC score. Comparison of GEMPAC score between pre-op and post-op. The proportion of each normalized GSC marker in (E) pre-op and (F) post-op. Kaplan-Meier plots of overall survival by GEMPAC score. Survival outcome differences in pre-op (G) and post-op (H). (I) ROC curve analysis for GEMPAC score between short and long overall survival groups. Next, we investigated if the GEMPAC score was able to predict overall survival in a cohort of 24 patients who received only standard care temozolomide (TMZ) and radiotherapy (RT). Patients were categorized into either high (> median GEMPAC score) or low (< median GEMPAC score) groups. Before surgical resection there was no correlation in overall survival (p = 0.4936) , however, after surgical resection, patients with a high GEMPAC score had significantly shorter survival compared to patients with a low GEMPAC score (p = 0.0055) . To investigate the sensitivity and specificity of the GEMPAC score for predicting overall survival, a 1-year overall survival was assessed by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. In this context, the area under the curve (AUC) for predicting overall survival after surgical resection (post-op) was 0.79 (95% CI 0.6-0.98) . These results indicate the GEMPAC score from circulating GBM sEVs could predict patients’ survival after surgery, likely reflecting the remaining tumor burden after surgical resection which is a predictor of survival after resection.

Article Snippet: Approximately 1 × 10 9 total sEV particles were incubated with either anti-ATP1B2 (PA526279, Thermo Fisher Scientific), anti-EAAT2 (NOVNBP120136, Novus), anti-CD9 APC (17-0098-42, Thermo Fisher Scientific), anti-CD24 (ab134375, Abcam), anti-EGFR (ab231, Abcam), anti-CD44 Alexa Fluor 488 (103016, BioLegend), or anti-CD133 Alexa Fluor 488 (FAB11331G, R&D Systems) in 50 µL of PBS, for 1 h at 37 °C.

Techniques: Concentration Assay, Marker, Comparison

(A) The comparison of GEMPAC score between patients that had radiological recurrence (RR) less than 300 days and more than 300 days. Data are represented as mean ± standard deviation. *** p < 0.001. (B) Kaplan-Meier plots of overall survival demonstrate MRI detected radiological recurrence is associated with overall survival. (C) Representative longitudinal case showing detection of progression with the GEMPAC analysis before MRI. (i) MRI images and SERS mapping images of LP1. Red arrows indicated tumor location. Scale bar = 10 µm; (ii) GEMPAC score for LP1 before and during the treatment indicating progression (red area) before MRI detected recurrence at 41 weeks; (iii) Normalized GSC-related protein, CD24 (grey line), CD44 (green line), CD133 (yellow line), and EGFR (purple line) composition changes throughout treatment, indicating a significant increase in the MES-like GSC CD44 markers. (Data are represented as mean ± standard error (n = 4). Significant differences are represented by different letters (p < 0.05). (D) Representative longitudinal case of responding to the TMZ therapy. (i) MRI images and SERS mapping images of LP2. Red arrows indicated tumor location. Scale bar = 10 µm; (ii) GEMPAC score of LP2 before and during the treatment, with the blue area representing a therapeutic response; (iii) Normalized GSC-related protein composition, CD24 (grey line), CD44 (green line), CD133 (yellow line), and EGFR (purple line) changes throughout the treatment, indicating a decrease in the MES-like GSC CD44 marker. Data are represented as mean ± standard error (n = 4).

Journal: medRxiv

Article Title: Longitudinal Monitoring of Glioblastoma Small Extracellular Vesicle Evolution Using a Nanodiagnostic to Detect Emergence of Glioma Stem Cells Driving Recurrent Disease

doi: 10.1101/2024.09.23.24314250

Figure Lengend Snippet: (A) The comparison of GEMPAC score between patients that had radiological recurrence (RR) less than 300 days and more than 300 days. Data are represented as mean ± standard deviation. *** p < 0.001. (B) Kaplan-Meier plots of overall survival demonstrate MRI detected radiological recurrence is associated with overall survival. (C) Representative longitudinal case showing detection of progression with the GEMPAC analysis before MRI. (i) MRI images and SERS mapping images of LP1. Red arrows indicated tumor location. Scale bar = 10 µm; (ii) GEMPAC score for LP1 before and during the treatment indicating progression (red area) before MRI detected recurrence at 41 weeks; (iii) Normalized GSC-related protein, CD24 (grey line), CD44 (green line), CD133 (yellow line), and EGFR (purple line) composition changes throughout treatment, indicating a significant increase in the MES-like GSC CD44 markers. (Data are represented as mean ± standard error (n = 4). Significant differences are represented by different letters (p < 0.05). (D) Representative longitudinal case of responding to the TMZ therapy. (i) MRI images and SERS mapping images of LP2. Red arrows indicated tumor location. Scale bar = 10 µm; (ii) GEMPAC score of LP2 before and during the treatment, with the blue area representing a therapeutic response; (iii) Normalized GSC-related protein composition, CD24 (grey line), CD44 (green line), CD133 (yellow line), and EGFR (purple line) changes throughout the treatment, indicating a decrease in the MES-like GSC CD44 marker. Data are represented as mean ± standard error (n = 4).

Article Snippet: Approximately 1 × 10 9 total sEV particles were incubated with either anti-ATP1B2 (PA526279, Thermo Fisher Scientific), anti-EAAT2 (NOVNBP120136, Novus), anti-CD9 APC (17-0098-42, Thermo Fisher Scientific), anti-CD24 (ab134375, Abcam), anti-EGFR (ab231, Abcam), anti-CD44 Alexa Fluor 488 (103016, BioLegend), or anti-CD133 Alexa Fluor 488 (FAB11331G, R&D Systems) in 50 µL of PBS, for 1 h at 37 °C.

Techniques: Comparison, Standard Deviation, Marker