CD4 Antibody Search Results


  • Logo
  • About
  • News
  • Press Release
  • Team
  • Advisors
  • Partners
  • Contact
  • Bioz Stars
  • Bioz vStars
  • 99
    Thermo Fisher cd4
    Cd4, supplied by Thermo Fisher, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 99/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/cd4/product/Thermo Fisher
    Average 99 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    Price from $9.99 to $1999.99
    cd4 - by Bioz Stars, 2021-05
    99/100 stars
      Buy from Supplier

    86
    Thermo Fisher anti cd4
    Analysis of LL and SS cell lines (A) Cartoon of <t>CD4</t> highlighting the location and nature of the mutations tested (left). Flow cytometry analysis of CD4 (center) and TCR expression (right) on 58α - β - cells. (B) Raw CD4 signal is shown for each sucrose fraction (left). AUC is shown for the DRM fractions (center) and DSM fractions (right). (C) Raw cholera toxin B (CTxB) signal is shown for each sucrose fraction (left). AUC is shown for the DRM (center) and DSM fractions (right). (D) Raw Lck signal is shown for each sucrose fraction (left). AUC is shown for the DRM (center) and DSM fractions (right). (E) CD4 endocytosis after pMHCII engagement is shown for the indicated cell lines after 16 hours coculture with APCs in the presence of 10µM MCC peptide. The change in CD4 gMFI, as measured by flow cytometry, is shown for each cell line relative to an equivalent sample cultured with APCs in the absence of MCC peptide. For (B-E) each data point represents the mean +/- SEM for the same three independent experiments (biological replicates). For E, endocytosis measurements were performed in triplicate (technical replicates) for each experiment. One-way ANOVA was performed with a Dunnett’s posttest for comparisons with WT samples, and a Sidak’s posttest for comparisons between selected samples. See also Figure 5 .
    Anti Cd4, supplied by Thermo Fisher, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 86/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/anti cd4/product/Thermo Fisher
    Average 86 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    Price from $9.99 to $1999.99
    anti cd4 - by Bioz Stars, 2021-05
    86/100 stars
      Buy from Supplier

    97
    BioLegend anti cd4
    Analysis of LL and SS cell lines (A) Cartoon of <t>CD4</t> highlighting the location and nature of the mutations tested (left). Flow cytometry analysis of CD4 (center) and TCR expression (right) on 58α - β - cells. (B) Raw CD4 signal is shown for each sucrose fraction (left). AUC is shown for the DRM fractions (center) and DSM fractions (right). (C) Raw cholera toxin B (CTxB) signal is shown for each sucrose fraction (left). AUC is shown for the DRM (center) and DSM fractions (right). (D) Raw Lck signal is shown for each sucrose fraction (left). AUC is shown for the DRM (center) and DSM fractions (right). (E) CD4 endocytosis after pMHCII engagement is shown for the indicated cell lines after 16 hours coculture with APCs in the presence of 10µM MCC peptide. The change in CD4 gMFI, as measured by flow cytometry, is shown for each cell line relative to an equivalent sample cultured with APCs in the absence of MCC peptide. For (B-E) each data point represents the mean +/- SEM for the same three independent experiments (biological replicates). For E, endocytosis measurements were performed in triplicate (technical replicates) for each experiment. One-way ANOVA was performed with a Dunnett’s posttest for comparisons with WT samples, and a Sidak’s posttest for comparisons between selected samples. See also Figure 5 .
    Anti Cd4, supplied by BioLegend, 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/result/anti cd4/product/BioLegend
    Average 97 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    Price from $9.99 to $1999.99
    anti cd4 - by Bioz Stars, 2021-05
    97/100 stars
      Buy from Supplier

    99
    BioLegend cd4
    Analysis of LL and SS cell lines (A) Cartoon of <t>CD4</t> highlighting the location and nature of the mutations tested (left). Flow cytometry analysis of CD4 (center) and TCR expression (right) on 58α - β - cells. (B) Raw CD4 signal is shown for each sucrose fraction (left). AUC is shown for the DRM fractions (center) and DSM fractions (right). (C) Raw cholera toxin B (CTxB) signal is shown for each sucrose fraction (left). AUC is shown for the DRM (center) and DSM fractions (right). (D) Raw Lck signal is shown for each sucrose fraction (left). AUC is shown for the DRM (center) and DSM fractions (right). (E) CD4 endocytosis after pMHCII engagement is shown for the indicated cell lines after 16 hours coculture with APCs in the presence of 10µM MCC peptide. The change in CD4 gMFI, as measured by flow cytometry, is shown for each cell line relative to an equivalent sample cultured with APCs in the absence of MCC peptide. For (B-E) each data point represents the mean +/- SEM for the same three independent experiments (biological replicates). For E, endocytosis measurements were performed in triplicate (technical replicates) for each experiment. One-way ANOVA was performed with a Dunnett’s posttest for comparisons with WT samples, and a Sidak’s posttest for comparisons between selected samples. See also Figure 5 .
    Cd4, supplied by BioLegend, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 99/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/cd4/product/BioLegend
    Average 99 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    Price from $9.99 to $1999.99
    cd4 - by Bioz Stars, 2021-05
    99/100 stars
      Buy from Supplier

    N/A
    The CD4 Antibody from Novus Biologicals is a rabbit polyclonal antibody to CD4 This antibody reacts with human mouse rat canine rabbit The CD4 Antibody has been validated for the
      Buy from Supplier

    N/A
    Anti CD4 MOUSE Antibody 200 301 AG9
      Buy from Supplier

    N/A
    CD4 is a membrane glycoprotein of T lymphocytes that interacts with major histocompatibility complex class II antigens and is also a receptor for the human immunodeficiency virus This protein is
      Buy from Supplier

    N/A
    CD4 Antibody is a Rabbit Polyclonal antibody against CD4 This gene encodes a membrane glycoprotein of T lymphocytes that interacts with major histocompatibility complex class II antigenes and is also
      Buy from Supplier

    Image Search Results


    Analysis of LL and SS cell lines (A) Cartoon of CD4 highlighting the location and nature of the mutations tested (left). Flow cytometry analysis of CD4 (center) and TCR expression (right) on 58α - β - cells. (B) Raw CD4 signal is shown for each sucrose fraction (left). AUC is shown for the DRM fractions (center) and DSM fractions (right). (C) Raw cholera toxin B (CTxB) signal is shown for each sucrose fraction (left). AUC is shown for the DRM (center) and DSM fractions (right). (D) Raw Lck signal is shown for each sucrose fraction (left). AUC is shown for the DRM (center) and DSM fractions (right). (E) CD4 endocytosis after pMHCII engagement is shown for the indicated cell lines after 16 hours coculture with APCs in the presence of 10µM MCC peptide. The change in CD4 gMFI, as measured by flow cytometry, is shown for each cell line relative to an equivalent sample cultured with APCs in the absence of MCC peptide. For (B-E) each data point represents the mean +/- SEM for the same three independent experiments (biological replicates). For E, endocytosis measurements were performed in triplicate (technical replicates) for each experiment. One-way ANOVA was performed with a Dunnett’s posttest for comparisons with WT samples, and a Sidak’s posttest for comparisons between selected samples. See also Figure 5 .

    Journal: bioRxiv

    Article Title: Enhancing and inhibitory motifs have coevolved to regulate CD4 activity

    doi: 10.1101/2021.04.29.441928

    Figure Lengend Snippet: Analysis of LL and SS cell lines (A) Cartoon of CD4 highlighting the location and nature of the mutations tested (left). Flow cytometry analysis of CD4 (center) and TCR expression (right) on 58α - β - cells. (B) Raw CD4 signal is shown for each sucrose fraction (left). AUC is shown for the DRM fractions (center) and DSM fractions (right). (C) Raw cholera toxin B (CTxB) signal is shown for each sucrose fraction (left). AUC is shown for the DRM (center) and DSM fractions (right). (D) Raw Lck signal is shown for each sucrose fraction (left). AUC is shown for the DRM (center) and DSM fractions (right). (E) CD4 endocytosis after pMHCII engagement is shown for the indicated cell lines after 16 hours coculture with APCs in the presence of 10µM MCC peptide. The change in CD4 gMFI, as measured by flow cytometry, is shown for each cell line relative to an equivalent sample cultured with APCs in the absence of MCC peptide. For (B-E) each data point represents the mean +/- SEM for the same three independent experiments (biological replicates). For E, endocytosis measurements were performed in triplicate (technical replicates) for each experiment. One-way ANOVA was performed with a Dunnett’s posttest for comparisons with WT samples, and a Sidak’s posttest for comparisons between selected samples. See also Figure 5 .

    Article Snippet: 96 well plates containing cells were washed with ice cold FACs buffer (PBS, 2%FBS, 0.02% sodium azide), transferred to ice, and Fc receptors were blocked with Fc block mAb clone 2.4G2 for 15 minutes at 4°C prior to surface staining for 30 minutes at 4°C with anti-CD4 (clone GK1.5 EF450, Invitrogen) and anti-Vβ3 TCR clone (clone KJ25, BD Pharmingen) antibodies.

    Techniques: Flow Cytometry, Expressing, Cell Culture

    The GGXXG + CV+C motifs influence CD4 membrane domain localization and function (A) CD4 signal for each sucrose gradient fraction is shown as a percent of the total CD4 signal detected in all fractions (left). The area under the curve (AUC) is presented for the normalized CD4 signal in the detergent resistant membrane (DRM) fractions (center) and detergent soluble membrane (DSM) fractions (right). (B) Cholera toxin B (CTxB) signal is shown for each sucrose fraction normalized to the CD4 signal detected in the corresponding fraction (left). The AUC is shown for the normalized CTxB signal in the DRM (center) and DSM fractions (right). (C) Lck signal is shown for each sucrose fraction normalized to the CD4 signal detected in the corresponding fraction (left). The AUC is shown for the normalized Lck signal in the DRM (center) and DSM fractions (right). (D) IL-2 production is shown in response to a titration of MCC peptide (left). AUC analysis for the dose response is shown as a measure of the response magnitude (center). The average response to a low dose (41nM) of peptide is shown as a measure of sensitivity (right). For (A-C) each data point represents the mean +/- SEM for the same three independent experiments (biological replicates). For (D), the dose response represents one of three experiments showing the mean +/- SEM of triplicate wells (technical replicates). The magnitude and sensitivity data represent the mean +/- SEM of three independent experiments (biological replicates). One-way ANOVA with a Dunnett’s posttest for comparisons with WT samples, or a Sidak’s posttest for comparisons between selected samples, were performed. See also Figure S2 .

    Journal: bioRxiv

    Article Title: Enhancing and inhibitory motifs have coevolved to regulate CD4 activity

    doi: 10.1101/2021.04.29.441928

    Figure Lengend Snippet: The GGXXG + CV+C motifs influence CD4 membrane domain localization and function (A) CD4 signal for each sucrose gradient fraction is shown as a percent of the total CD4 signal detected in all fractions (left). The area under the curve (AUC) is presented for the normalized CD4 signal in the detergent resistant membrane (DRM) fractions (center) and detergent soluble membrane (DSM) fractions (right). (B) Cholera toxin B (CTxB) signal is shown for each sucrose fraction normalized to the CD4 signal detected in the corresponding fraction (left). The AUC is shown for the normalized CTxB signal in the DRM (center) and DSM fractions (right). (C) Lck signal is shown for each sucrose fraction normalized to the CD4 signal detected in the corresponding fraction (left). The AUC is shown for the normalized Lck signal in the DRM (center) and DSM fractions (right). (D) IL-2 production is shown in response to a titration of MCC peptide (left). AUC analysis for the dose response is shown as a measure of the response magnitude (center). The average response to a low dose (41nM) of peptide is shown as a measure of sensitivity (right). For (A-C) each data point represents the mean +/- SEM for the same three independent experiments (biological replicates). For (D), the dose response represents one of three experiments showing the mean +/- SEM of triplicate wells (technical replicates). The magnitude and sensitivity data represent the mean +/- SEM of three independent experiments (biological replicates). One-way ANOVA with a Dunnett’s posttest for comparisons with WT samples, or a Sidak’s posttest for comparisons between selected samples, were performed. See also Figure S2 .

    Article Snippet: 96 well plates containing cells were washed with ice cold FACs buffer (PBS, 2%FBS, 0.02% sodium azide), transferred to ice, and Fc receptors were blocked with Fc block mAb clone 2.4G2 for 15 minutes at 4°C prior to surface staining for 30 minutes at 4°C with anti-CD4 (clone GK1.5 EF450, Invitrogen) and anti-Vβ3 TCR clone (clone KJ25, BD Pharmingen) antibodies.

    Techniques: Titration

    Conservation and purifying selection of the CD4 molecule (A) Mean pairwise sequence identity over all pairs in the alignment column was calculated using a sliding window of size 5. The alignment was based on 99 CD4 orthologs and still contains the sequences downstream of the CQC clasp. These residues were later removed based on low sequence conservation. (B) As in (A) but including only mammalian CD4 orthologs. (C) The Fixed Effects Likelihood (FEL) model was used to estimate non-synonymous (dN) and synonymous (dS) substitution rates on a per-site basis as an indication of evolutionary selection. Bars show the dN/dS ratio of both these values. Only bars for which the likelihood ratio test indicated statistical significance (P

    Journal: bioRxiv

    Article Title: Enhancing and inhibitory motifs have coevolved to regulate CD4 activity

    doi: 10.1101/2021.04.29.441928

    Figure Lengend Snippet: Conservation and purifying selection of the CD4 molecule (A) Mean pairwise sequence identity over all pairs in the alignment column was calculated using a sliding window of size 5. The alignment was based on 99 CD4 orthologs and still contains the sequences downstream of the CQC clasp. These residues were later removed based on low sequence conservation. (B) As in (A) but including only mammalian CD4 orthologs. (C) The Fixed Effects Likelihood (FEL) model was used to estimate non-synonymous (dN) and synonymous (dS) substitution rates on a per-site basis as an indication of evolutionary selection. Bars show the dN/dS ratio of both these values. Only bars for which the likelihood ratio test indicated statistical significance (P

    Article Snippet: 96 well plates containing cells were washed with ice cold FACs buffer (PBS, 2%FBS, 0.02% sodium azide), transferred to ice, and Fc receptors were blocked with Fc block mAb clone 2.4G2 for 15 minutes at 4°C prior to surface staining for 30 minutes at 4°C with anti-CD4 (clone GK1.5 EF450, Invitrogen) and anti-Vβ3 TCR clone (clone KJ25, BD Pharmingen) antibodies.

    Techniques: Selection, Sequencing

    The HXXR and HRΦQK motifs influence CD4 membrane domain localization and function (A) CD4 signal normalized as a percent of the total is shown for each sucrose gradient fraction (left) along with AUC analysis for the DRM (center) and DSM fractions (right). (B) Cholera toxin B (CTxB) signal normalized to CD4 signal detected is shown for each sucrose fraction (left) along with the AUC analysis for the DRM (center) and DSM fractions (right). (C) Lck signal normalized to CD4 signal is shown for each sucrose fraction (left) along with the AUC analysis for the DRM (center) and DSM fractions (right). (D) IL-2 dose response to MCC peptide (left), AUC analysis as a measure of the response magnitude (center), and the average response to a low dose (41nM) of MCC as a measure of sensitivity (right) are shown. For (A-D) the data are presented as in Figure 2 . One-way ANOVA was performed with a Dunnet’s posttest for comparisons with WT samples and a Sidak’s posttest for comparisons between selected samples. See also Figure S3 .

    Journal: bioRxiv

    Article Title: Enhancing and inhibitory motifs have coevolved to regulate CD4 activity

    doi: 10.1101/2021.04.29.441928

    Figure Lengend Snippet: The HXXR and HRΦQK motifs influence CD4 membrane domain localization and function (A) CD4 signal normalized as a percent of the total is shown for each sucrose gradient fraction (left) along with AUC analysis for the DRM (center) and DSM fractions (right). (B) Cholera toxin B (CTxB) signal normalized to CD4 signal detected is shown for each sucrose fraction (left) along with the AUC analysis for the DRM (center) and DSM fractions (right). (C) Lck signal normalized to CD4 signal is shown for each sucrose fraction (left) along with the AUC analysis for the DRM (center) and DSM fractions (right). (D) IL-2 dose response to MCC peptide (left), AUC analysis as a measure of the response magnitude (center), and the average response to a low dose (41nM) of MCC as a measure of sensitivity (right) are shown. For (A-D) the data are presented as in Figure 2 . One-way ANOVA was performed with a Dunnet’s posttest for comparisons with WT samples and a Sidak’s posttest for comparisons between selected samples. See also Figure S3 .

    Article Snippet: 96 well plates containing cells were washed with ice cold FACs buffer (PBS, 2%FBS, 0.02% sodium azide), transferred to ice, and Fc receptors were blocked with Fc block mAb clone 2.4G2 for 15 minutes at 4°C prior to surface staining for 30 minutes at 4°C with anti-CD4 (clone GK1.5 EF450, Invitrogen) and anti-Vβ3 TCR clone (clone KJ25, BD Pharmingen) antibodies.

    Techniques:

    Analysis of CD4 mutants of coevolving motifs (A-D) Cartoon of CD4 highlighting the location and nature of the mutations tested (left). Representative IL-2 dose responses to MCC peptide for one of three independent experiments with each dataset representing the mean +/- SEM of triplicates (center). Flow cytometry analysis of CD4 and TCR expression on 58α - β - cells (right). See also Figure 7 .

    Journal: bioRxiv

    Article Title: Enhancing and inhibitory motifs have coevolved to regulate CD4 activity

    doi: 10.1101/2021.04.29.441928

    Figure Lengend Snippet: Analysis of CD4 mutants of coevolving motifs (A-D) Cartoon of CD4 highlighting the location and nature of the mutations tested (left). Representative IL-2 dose responses to MCC peptide for one of three independent experiments with each dataset representing the mean +/- SEM of triplicates (center). Flow cytometry analysis of CD4 and TCR expression on 58α - β - cells (right). See also Figure 7 .

    Article Snippet: 96 well plates containing cells were washed with ice cold FACs buffer (PBS, 2%FBS, 0.02% sodium azide), transferred to ice, and Fc receptors were blocked with Fc block mAb clone 2.4G2 for 15 minutes at 4°C prior to surface staining for 30 minutes at 4°C with anti-CD4 (clone GK1.5 EF450, Invitrogen) and anti-Vβ3 TCR clone (clone KJ25, BD Pharmingen) antibodies.

    Techniques: Flow Cytometry, Expressing

    The intracellular helix attenuates response magnitude and sensitivity (A) CD4 signal normalized as a percent of the total is shown for each sucrose gradient fraction (left) along with AUC analysis for the DRM (center) and DSM fractions (right). (B) Cholera toxin B (CTxB) signal normalized to CD4 signal detected is shown for each sucrose fraction (left) along with the AUC analysis for the DRM (center) and DSM fractions (right). (C) Lck signal normalized to CD4 signal is shown for each sucrose fraction (left) along with the AUC analysis for the DRM (center) and DSM fractions (right). (D) IL-2 dose response to MCC peptide (left), AUC analysis as a measure of the response magnitude (center), and the average response to a low dose (41nM) of MCC as a measure of sensitivity (right) are shown. For (A-D) the data are presented as in Figure 2 . One-way ANOVA was performed with a Dunnett’s posttest for comparisons with WT samples and a Sidak’s posttest for comparisons between selected samples. See also Figure S4 .

    Journal: bioRxiv

    Article Title: Enhancing and inhibitory motifs have coevolved to regulate CD4 activity

    doi: 10.1101/2021.04.29.441928

    Figure Lengend Snippet: The intracellular helix attenuates response magnitude and sensitivity (A) CD4 signal normalized as a percent of the total is shown for each sucrose gradient fraction (left) along with AUC analysis for the DRM (center) and DSM fractions (right). (B) Cholera toxin B (CTxB) signal normalized to CD4 signal detected is shown for each sucrose fraction (left) along with the AUC analysis for the DRM (center) and DSM fractions (right). (C) Lck signal normalized to CD4 signal is shown for each sucrose fraction (left) along with the AUC analysis for the DRM (center) and DSM fractions (right). (D) IL-2 dose response to MCC peptide (left), AUC analysis as a measure of the response magnitude (center), and the average response to a low dose (41nM) of MCC as a measure of sensitivity (right) are shown. For (A-D) the data are presented as in Figure 2 . One-way ANOVA was performed with a Dunnett’s posttest for comparisons with WT samples and a Sidak’s posttest for comparisons between selected samples. See also Figure S4 .

    Article Snippet: 96 well plates containing cells were washed with ice cold FACs buffer (PBS, 2%FBS, 0.02% sodium azide), transferred to ice, and Fc receptors were blocked with Fc block mAb clone 2.4G2 for 15 minutes at 4°C prior to surface staining for 30 minutes at 4°C with anti-CD4 (clone GK1.5 EF450, Invitrogen) and anti-Vβ3 TCR clone (clone KJ25, BD Pharmingen) antibodies.

    Techniques: