Review





Similar Products

anti mouse cd8α monoclonal antibody  (MedChemExpress)
94
MedChemExpress anti mouse cd8α monoclonal antibody
Anti Mouse Cd8α Monoclonal Antibody, supplied by MedChemExpress, 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/mouse+anti+cd8%CE%B1/Anti-Mouse+CD8%CE%B1+Antibody/10__1016_slash_j__gendis__2026__102441-405-27-33
Average 94 stars, based on 1 article reviews
anti mouse cd8α monoclonal antibody - by Bioz Stars, 2026-10
94/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier
anti mouse cd8a  (Bio X Cell)
97
Bio X Cell anti mouse cd8a
Proangiogenic and immunosuppression phenotype of TANs in the CRLM microenvironment. A, Heatmap showing signature scores for angiogenesis, myeloid cell recruitment, neutrophil cytotoxicity, MDSC, and NET across each TAN and PMN subset. B, Comparison of angiogenesis, myeloid cell recruitment, MDSC, and NET signature scores among TAN and PMN subsets. C, Dot plot illustrating expression levels of major cytokines and chemokines in each TAN and PMN subset. D, Representative IHC images of CD31 staining in CRLM tissues. Scale bars, 50 µm. E, Correlation analysis between CD31 and TAN1 density using Spearman’s rank correlation ( n = 102). F, Representative images and quantification of tube formation in HUVECs when cocultured with conditioned medium from human LGALS3 − neutrophils or LGALS3 + neutrophils ( n = 6). G, UMAP plot showing six monocyte/macrophage subsets across colorectal cancer, adjacent liver tissues, CRLM, and PB samples. H, Shell-like plot depicting ligand–receptor interaction strength between TAN1_LGASL3 and neutrophil/monocyte/macrophage subset in CRLM. I, Selected ligand–receptor interactions between TAN1_LGASL3 and neutrophil/monocyte/macrophage subset in CRLM. J, Representative mIHC images of CD68, CCL3L1, CD66b, CCR1, and BHLHE40 in CRLM. Scale bars, 50 µm. K, Representative images of macrophage migration assays and effects of conditioned medium from human LGALS3 + neutrophils on migration of macrophages (induced from THP-1 cells) in the presence of CCR1 inhibitor (BX471) or anti-CCL3 antibody ( n = 6). L, Comparison of immunosuppressive macrophage signature scores between colorectal cancer and CRLM. M, Schematic of the CRLM mouse model. C57BL/6 mice received intrasplenic injections of mouse colorectal cancer cells (MC38). Mice were subsequently treated with IgG control (IgG; n = 6), anti-Ly6G antibody (anti-Ly6G; n = 6), or anti-Ly6G plus <t>anti-CD8a</t> antibodies (anti-Ly6G + anti-CD8a; n = 6). Livers were harvested on day 14. N, Representative images of liver metastases from IgG, anti-Ly6G, and anti-Ly6G + anti-CD8a groups. O, Comparison of liver weights among the three groups. P values were calculated by the Wilcoxon rank-sum test ( B and L ) and unpaired Student t test ( F , K , and O ). *, P < 0.05; **, P < 0.01; ***, P < 0.001. CRC, colorectal cancer; Ctrl, control.
Anti Mouse Cd8a, supplied by Bio X Cell, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 97/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/product/mouse+anti+cd8%CE%B1/InVivoMAb+anti-mouse+CD8%CE%B1/pmc13628106-246-7-9
Average 97 stars, based on 1 article reviews
anti mouse cd8a - by Bioz Stars, 2026-10
97/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier
anti cd8a  (Bio X Cell)
95
Bio X Cell anti cd8a
Proangiogenic and immunosuppression phenotype of TANs in the CRLM microenvironment. A, Heatmap showing signature scores for angiogenesis, myeloid cell recruitment, neutrophil cytotoxicity, MDSC, and NET across each TAN and PMN subset. B, Comparison of angiogenesis, myeloid cell recruitment, MDSC, and NET signature scores among TAN and PMN subsets. C, Dot plot illustrating expression levels of major cytokines and chemokines in each TAN and PMN subset. D, Representative IHC images of CD31 staining in CRLM tissues. Scale bars, 50 µm. E, Correlation analysis between CD31 and TAN1 density using Spearman’s rank correlation ( n = 102). F, Representative images and quantification of tube formation in HUVECs when cocultured with conditioned medium from human LGALS3 − neutrophils or LGALS3 + neutrophils ( n = 6). G, UMAP plot showing six monocyte/macrophage subsets across colorectal cancer, adjacent liver tissues, CRLM, and PB samples. H, Shell-like plot depicting ligand–receptor interaction strength between TAN1_LGASL3 and neutrophil/monocyte/macrophage subset in CRLM. I, Selected ligand–receptor interactions between TAN1_LGASL3 and neutrophil/monocyte/macrophage subset in CRLM. J, Representative mIHC images of CD68, CCL3L1, CD66b, CCR1, and BHLHE40 in CRLM. Scale bars, 50 µm. K, Representative images of macrophage migration assays and effects of conditioned medium from human LGALS3 + neutrophils on migration of macrophages (induced from THP-1 cells) in the presence of CCR1 inhibitor (BX471) or anti-CCL3 antibody ( n = 6). L, Comparison of immunosuppressive macrophage signature scores between colorectal cancer and CRLM. M, Schematic of the CRLM mouse model. C57BL/6 mice received intrasplenic injections of mouse colorectal cancer cells (MC38). Mice were subsequently treated with IgG control (IgG; n = 6), anti-Ly6G antibody (anti-Ly6G; n = 6), or anti-Ly6G plus <t>anti-CD8a</t> antibodies (anti-Ly6G + anti-CD8a; n = 6). Livers were harvested on day 14. N, Representative images of liver metastases from IgG, anti-Ly6G, and anti-Ly6G + anti-CD8a groups. O, Comparison of liver weights among the three groups. P values were calculated by the Wilcoxon rank-sum test ( B and L ) and unpaired Student t test ( F , K , and O ). *, P < 0.05; **, P < 0.01; ***, P < 0.001. CRC, colorectal cancer; Ctrl, control.
Anti Cd8a, supplied by Bio X Cell, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 95/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/product/mouse+anti+cd8%CE%B1/InVivoMAb+anti-mouse+CD8%CE%B1/pm42782159-280-25-29
Average 95 stars, based on 1 article reviews
anti cd8a - by Bioz Stars, 2026-10
95/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier
invivomab anti mouse cd8α  (Bio X Cell)
96
Bio X Cell invivomab anti mouse cd8α
Proangiogenic and immunosuppression phenotype of TANs in the CRLM microenvironment. A, Heatmap showing signature scores for angiogenesis, myeloid cell recruitment, neutrophil cytotoxicity, MDSC, and NET across each TAN and PMN subset. B, Comparison of angiogenesis, myeloid cell recruitment, MDSC, and NET signature scores among TAN and PMN subsets. C, Dot plot illustrating expression levels of major cytokines and chemokines in each TAN and PMN subset. D, Representative IHC images of CD31 staining in CRLM tissues. Scale bars, 50 µm. E, Correlation analysis between CD31 and TAN1 density using Spearman’s rank correlation ( n = 102). F, Representative images and quantification of tube formation in HUVECs when cocultured with conditioned medium from human LGALS3 − neutrophils or LGALS3 + neutrophils ( n = 6). G, UMAP plot showing six monocyte/macrophage subsets across colorectal cancer, adjacent liver tissues, CRLM, and PB samples. H, Shell-like plot depicting ligand–receptor interaction strength between TAN1_LGASL3 and neutrophil/monocyte/macrophage subset in CRLM. I, Selected ligand–receptor interactions between TAN1_LGASL3 and neutrophil/monocyte/macrophage subset in CRLM. J, Representative mIHC images of CD68, CCL3L1, CD66b, CCR1, and BHLHE40 in CRLM. Scale bars, 50 µm. K, Representative images of macrophage migration assays and effects of conditioned medium from human LGALS3 + neutrophils on migration of macrophages (induced from THP-1 cells) in the presence of CCR1 inhibitor (BX471) or anti-CCL3 antibody ( n = 6). L, Comparison of immunosuppressive macrophage signature scores between colorectal cancer and CRLM. M, Schematic of the CRLM mouse model. C57BL/6 mice received intrasplenic injections of mouse colorectal cancer cells (MC38). Mice were subsequently treated with IgG control (IgG; n = 6), anti-Ly6G antibody (anti-Ly6G; n = 6), or anti-Ly6G plus <t>anti-CD8a</t> antibodies (anti-Ly6G + anti-CD8a; n = 6). Livers were harvested on day 14. N, Representative images of liver metastases from IgG, anti-Ly6G, and anti-Ly6G + anti-CD8a groups. O, Comparison of liver weights among the three groups. P values were calculated by the Wilcoxon rank-sum test ( B and L ) and unpaired Student t test ( F , K , and O ). *, P < 0.05; **, P < 0.01; ***, P < 0.001. CRC, colorectal cancer; Ctrl, control.
Invivomab Anti Mouse Cd8α, supplied by Bio X Cell, 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/product/mouse+anti+cd8%CE%B1/InVivoMAb+anti-mouse+CD8%CE%B1/10__1016_slash_j__apsb__2026__09__020-71-12-18
Average 96 stars, based on 1 article reviews
invivomab anti mouse cd8α - by Bioz Stars, 2026-10
96/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier
α cd8  (Bio X Cell)
97
Bio X Cell α cd8
Proangiogenic and immunosuppression phenotype of TANs in the CRLM microenvironment. A, Heatmap showing signature scores for angiogenesis, myeloid cell recruitment, neutrophil cytotoxicity, MDSC, and NET across each TAN and PMN subset. B, Comparison of angiogenesis, myeloid cell recruitment, MDSC, and NET signature scores among TAN and PMN subsets. C, Dot plot illustrating expression levels of major cytokines and chemokines in each TAN and PMN subset. D, Representative IHC images of CD31 staining in CRLM tissues. Scale bars, 50 µm. E, Correlation analysis between CD31 and TAN1 density using Spearman’s rank correlation ( n = 102). F, Representative images and quantification of tube formation in HUVECs when cocultured with conditioned medium from human LGALS3 − neutrophils or LGALS3 + neutrophils ( n = 6). G, UMAP plot showing six monocyte/macrophage subsets across colorectal cancer, adjacent liver tissues, CRLM, and PB samples. H, Shell-like plot depicting ligand–receptor interaction strength between TAN1_LGASL3 and neutrophil/monocyte/macrophage subset in CRLM. I, Selected ligand–receptor interactions between TAN1_LGASL3 and neutrophil/monocyte/macrophage subset in CRLM. J, Representative mIHC images of CD68, CCL3L1, CD66b, CCR1, and BHLHE40 in CRLM. Scale bars, 50 µm. K, Representative images of macrophage migration assays and effects of conditioned medium from human LGALS3 + neutrophils on migration of macrophages (induced from THP-1 cells) in the presence of CCR1 inhibitor (BX471) or anti-CCL3 antibody ( n = 6). L, Comparison of immunosuppressive macrophage signature scores between colorectal cancer and CRLM. M, Schematic of the CRLM mouse model. C57BL/6 mice received intrasplenic injections of mouse colorectal cancer cells (MC38). Mice were subsequently treated with IgG control (IgG; n = 6), anti-Ly6G antibody (anti-Ly6G; n = 6), or anti-Ly6G plus <t>anti-CD8a</t> antibodies (anti-Ly6G + anti-CD8a; n = 6). Livers were harvested on day 14. N, Representative images of liver metastases from IgG, anti-Ly6G, and anti-Ly6G + anti-CD8a groups. O, Comparison of liver weights among the three groups. P values were calculated by the Wilcoxon rank-sum test ( B and L ) and unpaired Student t test ( F , K , and O ). *, P < 0.05; **, P < 0.01; ***, P < 0.001. CRC, colorectal cancer; Ctrl, control.
α Cd8, supplied by Bio X Cell, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 97/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/product/mouse+anti+cd8%CE%B1/InVivoMAb+anti-mouse+CD8%CE%B1/pmc13626842-274-10-13
Average 97 stars, based on 1 article reviews
α cd8 - by Bioz Stars, 2026-10
97/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier
anti cd8  (Bio X Cell)
96
Bio X Cell anti cd8
Proangiogenic and immunosuppression phenotype of TANs in the CRLM microenvironment. A, Heatmap showing signature scores for angiogenesis, myeloid cell recruitment, neutrophil cytotoxicity, MDSC, and NET across each TAN and PMN subset. B, Comparison of angiogenesis, myeloid cell recruitment, MDSC, and NET signature scores among TAN and PMN subsets. C, Dot plot illustrating expression levels of major cytokines and chemokines in each TAN and PMN subset. D, Representative IHC images of CD31 staining in CRLM tissues. Scale bars, 50 µm. E, Correlation analysis between CD31 and TAN1 density using Spearman’s rank correlation ( n = 102). F, Representative images and quantification of tube formation in HUVECs when cocultured with conditioned medium from human LGALS3 − neutrophils or LGALS3 + neutrophils ( n = 6). G, UMAP plot showing six monocyte/macrophage subsets across colorectal cancer, adjacent liver tissues, CRLM, and PB samples. H, Shell-like plot depicting ligand–receptor interaction strength between TAN1_LGASL3 and neutrophil/monocyte/macrophage subset in CRLM. I, Selected ligand–receptor interactions between TAN1_LGASL3 and neutrophil/monocyte/macrophage subset in CRLM. J, Representative mIHC images of CD68, CCL3L1, CD66b, CCR1, and BHLHE40 in CRLM. Scale bars, 50 µm. K, Representative images of macrophage migration assays and effects of conditioned medium from human LGALS3 + neutrophils on migration of macrophages (induced from THP-1 cells) in the presence of CCR1 inhibitor (BX471) or anti-CCL3 antibody ( n = 6). L, Comparison of immunosuppressive macrophage signature scores between colorectal cancer and CRLM. M, Schematic of the CRLM mouse model. C57BL/6 mice received intrasplenic injections of mouse colorectal cancer cells (MC38). Mice were subsequently treated with IgG control (IgG; n = 6), anti-Ly6G antibody (anti-Ly6G; n = 6), or anti-Ly6G plus <t>anti-CD8a</t> antibodies (anti-Ly6G + anti-CD8a; n = 6). Livers were harvested on day 14. N, Representative images of liver metastases from IgG, anti-Ly6G, and anti-Ly6G + anti-CD8a groups. O, Comparison of liver weights among the three groups. P values were calculated by the Wilcoxon rank-sum test ( B and L ) and unpaired Student t test ( F , K , and O ). *, P < 0.05; **, P < 0.01; ***, P < 0.001. CRC, colorectal cancer; Ctrl, control.
Anti Cd8, supplied by Bio X Cell, 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/product/mouse+anti+cd8%CE%B1/InVivoMAb+anti-mouse+CD8%CE%B1/pmc13584615-75-24-25
Average 96 stars, based on 1 article reviews
anti cd8 - by Bioz Stars, 2026-10
96/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier
anti-mouse cd8α antibody  (MedChemExpress)
94
MedChemExpress anti-mouse cd8α antibody
Proangiogenic and immunosuppression phenotype of TANs in the CRLM microenvironment. A, Heatmap showing signature scores for angiogenesis, myeloid cell recruitment, neutrophil cytotoxicity, MDSC, and NET across each TAN and PMN subset. B, Comparison of angiogenesis, myeloid cell recruitment, MDSC, and NET signature scores among TAN and PMN subsets. C, Dot plot illustrating expression levels of major cytokines and chemokines in each TAN and PMN subset. D, Representative IHC images of CD31 staining in CRLM tissues. Scale bars, 50 µm. E, Correlation analysis between CD31 and TAN1 density using Spearman’s rank correlation ( n = 102). F, Representative images and quantification of tube formation in HUVECs when cocultured with conditioned medium from human LGALS3 − neutrophils or LGALS3 + neutrophils ( n = 6). G, UMAP plot showing six monocyte/macrophage subsets across colorectal cancer, adjacent liver tissues, CRLM, and PB samples. H, Shell-like plot depicting ligand–receptor interaction strength between TAN1_LGASL3 and neutrophil/monocyte/macrophage subset in CRLM. I, Selected ligand–receptor interactions between TAN1_LGASL3 and neutrophil/monocyte/macrophage subset in CRLM. J, Representative mIHC images of CD68, CCL3L1, CD66b, CCR1, and BHLHE40 in CRLM. Scale bars, 50 µm. K, Representative images of macrophage migration assays and effects of conditioned medium from human LGALS3 + neutrophils on migration of macrophages (induced from THP-1 cells) in the presence of CCR1 inhibitor (BX471) or anti-CCL3 antibody ( n = 6). L, Comparison of immunosuppressive macrophage signature scores between colorectal cancer and CRLM. M, Schematic of the CRLM mouse model. C57BL/6 mice received intrasplenic injections of mouse colorectal cancer cells (MC38). Mice were subsequently treated with IgG control (IgG; n = 6), anti-Ly6G antibody (anti-Ly6G; n = 6), or anti-Ly6G plus <t>anti-CD8a</t> antibodies (anti-Ly6G + anti-CD8a; n = 6). Livers were harvested on day 14. N, Representative images of liver metastases from IgG, anti-Ly6G, and anti-Ly6G + anti-CD8a groups. O, Comparison of liver weights among the three groups. P values were calculated by the Wilcoxon rank-sum test ( B and L ) and unpaired Student t test ( F , K , and O ). *, P < 0.05; **, P < 0.01; ***, P < 0.001. CRC, colorectal cancer; Ctrl, control.
Anti Mouse Cd8α Antibody, supplied by MedChemExpress, 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/mouse+anti+cd8%CE%B1/Anti-Mouse+CD8%CE%B1+Antibody/custom%40hy-p990790%4042476240
Average 94 stars, based on 1 article reviews
anti-mouse cd8α antibody - by Bioz Stars, 2026-10
94/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier
anti cd8 mouse antibody  (Bio X Cell)
97
Bio X Cell anti cd8 mouse antibody
Proangiogenic and immunosuppression phenotype of TANs in the CRLM microenvironment. A, Heatmap showing signature scores for angiogenesis, myeloid cell recruitment, neutrophil cytotoxicity, MDSC, and NET across each TAN and PMN subset. B, Comparison of angiogenesis, myeloid cell recruitment, MDSC, and NET signature scores among TAN and PMN subsets. C, Dot plot illustrating expression levels of major cytokines and chemokines in each TAN and PMN subset. D, Representative IHC images of CD31 staining in CRLM tissues. Scale bars, 50 µm. E, Correlation analysis between CD31 and TAN1 density using Spearman’s rank correlation ( n = 102). F, Representative images and quantification of tube formation in HUVECs when cocultured with conditioned medium from human LGALS3 − neutrophils or LGALS3 + neutrophils ( n = 6). G, UMAP plot showing six monocyte/macrophage subsets across colorectal cancer, adjacent liver tissues, CRLM, and PB samples. H, Shell-like plot depicting ligand–receptor interaction strength between TAN1_LGASL3 and neutrophil/monocyte/macrophage subset in CRLM. I, Selected ligand–receptor interactions between TAN1_LGASL3 and neutrophil/monocyte/macrophage subset in CRLM. J, Representative mIHC images of CD68, CCL3L1, CD66b, CCR1, and BHLHE40 in CRLM. Scale bars, 50 µm. K, Representative images of macrophage migration assays and effects of conditioned medium from human LGALS3 + neutrophils on migration of macrophages (induced from THP-1 cells) in the presence of CCR1 inhibitor (BX471) or anti-CCL3 antibody ( n = 6). L, Comparison of immunosuppressive macrophage signature scores between colorectal cancer and CRLM. M, Schematic of the CRLM mouse model. C57BL/6 mice received intrasplenic injections of mouse colorectal cancer cells (MC38). Mice were subsequently treated with IgG control (IgG; n = 6), anti-Ly6G antibody (anti-Ly6G; n = 6), or anti-Ly6G plus <t>anti-CD8a</t> antibodies (anti-Ly6G + anti-CD8a; n = 6). Livers were harvested on day 14. N, Representative images of liver metastases from IgG, anti-Ly6G, and anti-Ly6G + anti-CD8a groups. O, Comparison of liver weights among the three groups. P values were calculated by the Wilcoxon rank-sum test ( B and L ) and unpaired Student t test ( F , K , and O ). *, P < 0.05; **, P < 0.01; ***, P < 0.001. CRC, colorectal cancer; Ctrl, control.
Anti Cd8 Mouse Antibody, supplied by Bio X Cell, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 97/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/product/mouse+anti+cd8%CE%B1/InVivoMAb+anti-mouse+CD8%CE%B1/pm41998161-333-10-14
Average 97 stars, based on 1 article reviews
anti cd8 mouse antibody - by Bioz Stars, 2026-10
97/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier
anti cd8 monoclonal antibody  (Bio X Cell)
97
Bio X Cell anti cd8 monoclonal antibody
Proangiogenic and immunosuppression phenotype of TANs in the CRLM microenvironment. A, Heatmap showing signature scores for angiogenesis, myeloid cell recruitment, neutrophil cytotoxicity, MDSC, and NET across each TAN and PMN subset. B, Comparison of angiogenesis, myeloid cell recruitment, MDSC, and NET signature scores among TAN and PMN subsets. C, Dot plot illustrating expression levels of major cytokines and chemokines in each TAN and PMN subset. D, Representative IHC images of CD31 staining in CRLM tissues. Scale bars, 50 µm. E, Correlation analysis between CD31 and TAN1 density using Spearman’s rank correlation ( n = 102). F, Representative images and quantification of tube formation in HUVECs when cocultured with conditioned medium from human LGALS3 − neutrophils or LGALS3 + neutrophils ( n = 6). G, UMAP plot showing six monocyte/macrophage subsets across colorectal cancer, adjacent liver tissues, CRLM, and PB samples. H, Shell-like plot depicting ligand–receptor interaction strength between TAN1_LGASL3 and neutrophil/monocyte/macrophage subset in CRLM. I, Selected ligand–receptor interactions between TAN1_LGASL3 and neutrophil/monocyte/macrophage subset in CRLM. J, Representative mIHC images of CD68, CCL3L1, CD66b, CCR1, and BHLHE40 in CRLM. Scale bars, 50 µm. K, Representative images of macrophage migration assays and effects of conditioned medium from human LGALS3 + neutrophils on migration of macrophages (induced from THP-1 cells) in the presence of CCR1 inhibitor (BX471) or anti-CCL3 antibody ( n = 6). L, Comparison of immunosuppressive macrophage signature scores between colorectal cancer and CRLM. M, Schematic of the CRLM mouse model. C57BL/6 mice received intrasplenic injections of mouse colorectal cancer cells (MC38). Mice were subsequently treated with IgG control (IgG; n = 6), anti-Ly6G antibody (anti-Ly6G; n = 6), or anti-Ly6G plus <t>anti-CD8a</t> antibodies (anti-Ly6G + anti-CD8a; n = 6). Livers were harvested on day 14. N, Representative images of liver metastases from IgG, anti-Ly6G, and anti-Ly6G + anti-CD8a groups. O, Comparison of liver weights among the three groups. P values were calculated by the Wilcoxon rank-sum test ( B and L ) and unpaired Student t test ( F , K , and O ). *, P < 0.05; **, P < 0.01; ***, P < 0.001. CRC, colorectal cancer; Ctrl, control.
Anti Cd8 Monoclonal Antibody, supplied by Bio X Cell, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 97/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/product/mouse+anti+cd8%CE%B1/InVivoMAb+anti-mouse+CD8%CE%B1/pm41803498-423-10-15
Average 97 stars, based on 1 article reviews
anti cd8 monoclonal antibody - by Bioz Stars, 2026-10
97/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier
resource source identifier invivomab anti mouse cd8α bio x cell  (Bio X Cell)
97
Bio X Cell resource source identifier invivomab anti mouse cd8α bio x cell
Proangiogenic and immunosuppression phenotype of TANs in the CRLM microenvironment. A, Heatmap showing signature scores for angiogenesis, myeloid cell recruitment, neutrophil cytotoxicity, MDSC, and NET across each TAN and PMN subset. B, Comparison of angiogenesis, myeloid cell recruitment, MDSC, and NET signature scores among TAN and PMN subsets. C, Dot plot illustrating expression levels of major cytokines and chemokines in each TAN and PMN subset. D, Representative IHC images of CD31 staining in CRLM tissues. Scale bars, 50 µm. E, Correlation analysis between CD31 and TAN1 density using Spearman’s rank correlation ( n = 102). F, Representative images and quantification of tube formation in HUVECs when cocultured with conditioned medium from human LGALS3 − neutrophils or LGALS3 + neutrophils ( n = 6). G, UMAP plot showing six monocyte/macrophage subsets across colorectal cancer, adjacent liver tissues, CRLM, and PB samples. H, Shell-like plot depicting ligand–receptor interaction strength between TAN1_LGASL3 and neutrophil/monocyte/macrophage subset in CRLM. I, Selected ligand–receptor interactions between TAN1_LGASL3 and neutrophil/monocyte/macrophage subset in CRLM. J, Representative mIHC images of CD68, CCL3L1, CD66b, CCR1, and BHLHE40 in CRLM. Scale bars, 50 µm. K, Representative images of macrophage migration assays and effects of conditioned medium from human LGALS3 + neutrophils on migration of macrophages (induced from THP-1 cells) in the presence of CCR1 inhibitor (BX471) or anti-CCL3 antibody ( n = 6). L, Comparison of immunosuppressive macrophage signature scores between colorectal cancer and CRLM. M, Schematic of the CRLM mouse model. C57BL/6 mice received intrasplenic injections of mouse colorectal cancer cells (MC38). Mice were subsequently treated with IgG control (IgG; n = 6), anti-Ly6G antibody (anti-Ly6G; n = 6), or anti-Ly6G plus <t>anti-CD8a</t> antibodies (anti-Ly6G + anti-CD8a; n = 6). Livers were harvested on day 14. N, Representative images of liver metastases from IgG, anti-Ly6G, and anti-Ly6G + anti-CD8a groups. O, Comparison of liver weights among the three groups. P values were calculated by the Wilcoxon rank-sum test ( B and L ) and unpaired Student t test ( F , K , and O ). *, P < 0.05; **, P < 0.01; ***, P < 0.001. CRC, colorectal cancer; Ctrl, control.
Resource Source Identifier Invivomab Anti Mouse Cd8α Bio X Cell, supplied by Bio X Cell, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 97/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/product/mouse+anti+cd8%CE%B1/InVivoMAb+anti-mouse+CD8%CE%B1/pm41687608-281-2-8
Average 97 stars, based on 1 article reviews
resource source identifier invivomab anti mouse cd8α bio x cell - by Bioz Stars, 2026-10
97/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier

Image Search Results


Proangiogenic and immunosuppression phenotype of TANs in the CRLM microenvironment. A, Heatmap showing signature scores for angiogenesis, myeloid cell recruitment, neutrophil cytotoxicity, MDSC, and NET across each TAN and PMN subset. B, Comparison of angiogenesis, myeloid cell recruitment, MDSC, and NET signature scores among TAN and PMN subsets. C, Dot plot illustrating expression levels of major cytokines and chemokines in each TAN and PMN subset. D, Representative IHC images of CD31 staining in CRLM tissues. Scale bars, 50 µm. E, Correlation analysis between CD31 and TAN1 density using Spearman’s rank correlation ( n = 102). F, Representative images and quantification of tube formation in HUVECs when cocultured with conditioned medium from human LGALS3 − neutrophils or LGALS3 + neutrophils ( n = 6). G, UMAP plot showing six monocyte/macrophage subsets across colorectal cancer, adjacent liver tissues, CRLM, and PB samples. H, Shell-like plot depicting ligand–receptor interaction strength between TAN1_LGASL3 and neutrophil/monocyte/macrophage subset in CRLM. I, Selected ligand–receptor interactions between TAN1_LGASL3 and neutrophil/monocyte/macrophage subset in CRLM. J, Representative mIHC images of CD68, CCL3L1, CD66b, CCR1, and BHLHE40 in CRLM. Scale bars, 50 µm. K, Representative images of macrophage migration assays and effects of conditioned medium from human LGALS3 + neutrophils on migration of macrophages (induced from THP-1 cells) in the presence of CCR1 inhibitor (BX471) or anti-CCL3 antibody ( n = 6). L, Comparison of immunosuppressive macrophage signature scores between colorectal cancer and CRLM. M, Schematic of the CRLM mouse model. C57BL/6 mice received intrasplenic injections of mouse colorectal cancer cells (MC38). Mice were subsequently treated with IgG control (IgG; n = 6), anti-Ly6G antibody (anti-Ly6G; n = 6), or anti-Ly6G plus anti-CD8a antibodies (anti-Ly6G + anti-CD8a; n = 6). Livers were harvested on day 14. N, Representative images of liver metastases from IgG, anti-Ly6G, and anti-Ly6G + anti-CD8a groups. O, Comparison of liver weights among the three groups. P values were calculated by the Wilcoxon rank-sum test ( B and L ) and unpaired Student t test ( F , K , and O ). *, P < 0.05; **, P < 0.01; ***, P < 0.001. CRC, colorectal cancer; Ctrl, control.

Journal: Cancer Discovery

Article Title: Senescent-Like Neutrophils Shape Angiogenic Immunosuppressive Niches in Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastasis

doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-25-0820

Figure Lengend Snippet: Proangiogenic and immunosuppression phenotype of TANs in the CRLM microenvironment. A, Heatmap showing signature scores for angiogenesis, myeloid cell recruitment, neutrophil cytotoxicity, MDSC, and NET across each TAN and PMN subset. B, Comparison of angiogenesis, myeloid cell recruitment, MDSC, and NET signature scores among TAN and PMN subsets. C, Dot plot illustrating expression levels of major cytokines and chemokines in each TAN and PMN subset. D, Representative IHC images of CD31 staining in CRLM tissues. Scale bars, 50 µm. E, Correlation analysis between CD31 and TAN1 density using Spearman’s rank correlation ( n = 102). F, Representative images and quantification of tube formation in HUVECs when cocultured with conditioned medium from human LGALS3 − neutrophils or LGALS3 + neutrophils ( n = 6). G, UMAP plot showing six monocyte/macrophage subsets across colorectal cancer, adjacent liver tissues, CRLM, and PB samples. H, Shell-like plot depicting ligand–receptor interaction strength between TAN1_LGASL3 and neutrophil/monocyte/macrophage subset in CRLM. I, Selected ligand–receptor interactions between TAN1_LGASL3 and neutrophil/monocyte/macrophage subset in CRLM. J, Representative mIHC images of CD68, CCL3L1, CD66b, CCR1, and BHLHE40 in CRLM. Scale bars, 50 µm. K, Representative images of macrophage migration assays and effects of conditioned medium from human LGALS3 + neutrophils on migration of macrophages (induced from THP-1 cells) in the presence of CCR1 inhibitor (BX471) or anti-CCL3 antibody ( n = 6). L, Comparison of immunosuppressive macrophage signature scores between colorectal cancer and CRLM. M, Schematic of the CRLM mouse model. C57BL/6 mice received intrasplenic injections of mouse colorectal cancer cells (MC38). Mice were subsequently treated with IgG control (IgG; n = 6), anti-Ly6G antibody (anti-Ly6G; n = 6), or anti-Ly6G plus anti-CD8a antibodies (anti-Ly6G + anti-CD8a; n = 6). Livers were harvested on day 14. N, Representative images of liver metastases from IgG, anti-Ly6G, and anti-Ly6G + anti-CD8a groups. O, Comparison of liver weights among the three groups. P values were calculated by the Wilcoxon rank-sum test ( B and L ) and unpaired Student t test ( F , K , and O ). *, P < 0.05; **, P < 0.01; ***, P < 0.001. CRC, colorectal cancer; Ctrl, control.

Article Snippet: For CD8 + T-cell depletion, 200 μg anti-mouse CD8a (Bio X Cell, BE0061, RRID: AB_1125541) was injected intraperitoneally twice a week.

Techniques: Comparison, Expressing, Staining, Analysis, Migration, Control