cwith goat anti cd45 antibody Search Results


anti cd45  (Miltenyi Biotec)
96
Miltenyi Biotec anti cd45
Anti Cd45, supplied by Miltenyi Biotec, 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/cwith+goat+anti+cd45+antibody/CD45+Antibody%2C+anti-mouse%2C+REAfinity/pm40903824-118-35-39
Average 96 stars, based on 1 article reviews
anti cd45 - by Bioz Stars, 2026-09
96/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier
cd45 bb515  (Becton Dickinson)
90
Becton Dickinson cd45 bb515
Cd45 Bb515, supplied by Becton Dickinson, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/product/cwith+goat+anti+cd45+antibody/bb515/pm36949064-257-76-80
Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
cd45 bb515 - by Bioz Stars, 2026-09
90/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier
psmad2  (Cell Signaling Technology Inc)
94
Cell Signaling Technology Inc psmad2
Figure 3. Comparison of orthotopic and subcutaneous mTDT response to anti–PD-L1. A, Representative images of multiplex staining for CD8þ T cells (green), <t>pSMAD2</t> (mauve), PD-L1 (red), F4–80 (yellow), pan-cytokeratin (white), and DAPI counterstained nuclei (blue) for parental tumors E, G, H, and I and corresponding orthotopic and subcutaneous mTDT. White scale bar, 20 mm. B, The percentage of stroma in orthotopic (orange circles) and subcutaneous (purple triangles) mTDT. C–F, The cell density (number per mm2) of CD8 (C), PD-L1 (D), F4–80 (E), and pSMAD2 (F) in mTDT from four infiltrated parents grown in orthotopic (n ¼ 5; orange circles) versus subcutaneous (n ¼ 4; purple triangle) sites. G, Tumor growth curves of mTDT from six infiltrated families treated with anti–PD-L1 (purple) versus control antibody (black dash). H, Overall survival curve for mTDT from six infiltrated families treated with control IgG (black dash; n ¼ 27) or anti–PD-L1 (purple; n ¼ 31). I, Combined Kaplan–Meier survival graph of mTDT from family B (red), family E (green), G (pink), H (orange), I (blue), and K (gold). Cox regression analysis table of factors affecting survival of mTDT shown as Kaplan–Meier. , P < 0.05; , P < 0.001.
Psmad2, supplied by Cell Signaling Technology Inc, 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/cwith+goat+anti+cd45+antibody/Smad2+Rabbit+mAb/10__1158_slash_0008___5472__can___21___0253-83-47-48
Average 94 stars, based on 1 article reviews
psmad2 - by Bioz Stars, 2026-09
94/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier
anti-mouse cd3e buv395  (Becton Dickinson)
90
Becton Dickinson anti-mouse cd3e buv395
Figure 3. Comparison of orthotopic and subcutaneous mTDT response to anti–PD-L1. A, Representative images of multiplex staining for CD8þ T cells (green), <t>pSMAD2</t> (mauve), PD-L1 (red), F4–80 (yellow), pan-cytokeratin (white), and DAPI counterstained nuclei (blue) for parental tumors E, G, H, and I and corresponding orthotopic and subcutaneous mTDT. White scale bar, 20 mm. B, The percentage of stroma in orthotopic (orange circles) and subcutaneous (purple triangles) mTDT. C–F, The cell density (number per mm2) of CD8 (C), PD-L1 (D), F4–80 (E), and pSMAD2 (F) in mTDT from four infiltrated parents grown in orthotopic (n ¼ 5; orange circles) versus subcutaneous (n ¼ 4; purple triangle) sites. G, Tumor growth curves of mTDT from six infiltrated families treated with anti–PD-L1 (purple) versus control antibody (black dash). H, Overall survival curve for mTDT from six infiltrated families treated with control IgG (black dash; n ¼ 27) or anti–PD-L1 (purple; n ¼ 31). I, Combined Kaplan–Meier survival graph of mTDT from family B (red), family E (green), G (pink), H (orange), I (blue), and K (gold). Cox regression analysis table of factors affecting survival of mTDT shown as Kaplan–Meier. , P < 0.05; , P < 0.001.
Anti Mouse Cd3e Buv395, supplied by Becton Dickinson, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/product/cwith+goat+anti+cd45+antibody/cd4+buv395+antibody/pm36949064-257-18-23
Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
anti-mouse cd3e buv395 - by Bioz Stars, 2026-09
90/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier
cd69 pe-cf594  (Becton Dickinson)
90
Becton Dickinson cd69 pe-cf594
Figure 3. Comparison of orthotopic and subcutaneous mTDT response to anti–PD-L1. A, Representative images of multiplex staining for CD8þ T cells (green), <t>pSMAD2</t> (mauve), PD-L1 (red), F4–80 (yellow), pan-cytokeratin (white), and DAPI counterstained nuclei (blue) for parental tumors E, G, H, and I and corresponding orthotopic and subcutaneous mTDT. White scale bar, 20 mm. B, The percentage of stroma in orthotopic (orange circles) and subcutaneous (purple triangles) mTDT. C–F, The cell density (number per mm2) of CD8 (C), PD-L1 (D), F4–80 (E), and pSMAD2 (F) in mTDT from four infiltrated parents grown in orthotopic (n ¼ 5; orange circles) versus subcutaneous (n ¼ 4; purple triangle) sites. G, Tumor growth curves of mTDT from six infiltrated families treated with anti–PD-L1 (purple) versus control antibody (black dash). H, Overall survival curve for mTDT from six infiltrated families treated with control IgG (black dash; n ¼ 27) or anti–PD-L1 (purple; n ¼ 31). I, Combined Kaplan–Meier survival graph of mTDT from family B (red), family E (green), G (pink), H (orange), I (blue), and K (gold). Cox regression analysis table of factors affecting survival of mTDT shown as Kaplan–Meier. , P < 0.05; , P < 0.001.
Cd69 Pe Cf594, supplied by Becton Dickinson, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/product/cwith+goat+anti+cd45+antibody/anti+cd69/pm36949064-257-33-37
Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
cd69 pe-cf594 - by Bioz Stars, 2026-09
90/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier
cd4 bv786  (Becton Dickinson)
90
Becton Dickinson cd4 bv786
Figure 3. Comparison of orthotopic and subcutaneous mTDT response to anti–PD-L1. A, Representative images of multiplex staining for CD8þ T cells (green), <t>pSMAD2</t> (mauve), PD-L1 (red), F4–80 (yellow), pan-cytokeratin (white), and DAPI counterstained nuclei (blue) for parental tumors E, G, H, and I and corresponding orthotopic and subcutaneous mTDT. White scale bar, 20 mm. B, The percentage of stroma in orthotopic (orange circles) and subcutaneous (purple triangles) mTDT. C–F, The cell density (number per mm2) of CD8 (C), PD-L1 (D), F4–80 (E), and pSMAD2 (F) in mTDT from four infiltrated parents grown in orthotopic (n ¼ 5; orange circles) versus subcutaneous (n ¼ 4; purple triangle) sites. G, Tumor growth curves of mTDT from six infiltrated families treated with anti–PD-L1 (purple) versus control antibody (black dash). H, Overall survival curve for mTDT from six infiltrated families treated with control IgG (black dash; n ¼ 27) or anti–PD-L1 (purple; n ¼ 31). I, Combined Kaplan–Meier survival graph of mTDT from family B (red), family E (green), G (pink), H (orange), I (blue), and K (gold). Cox regression analysis table of factors affecting survival of mTDT shown as Kaplan–Meier. , P < 0.05; , P < 0.001.
Cd4 Bv786, supplied by Becton Dickinson, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/product/cwith+goat+anti+cd45+antibody/anti+cd3/pm36949064-257-26-30
Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
cd4 bv786 - by Bioz Stars, 2026-09
90/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier
cd279 (pd-1) bv605  (Becton Dickinson)
90
Becton Dickinson cd279 (pd-1) bv605
Figure 3. Comparison of orthotopic and subcutaneous mTDT response to anti–PD-L1. A, Representative images of multiplex staining for CD8þ T cells (green), <t>pSMAD2</t> (mauve), PD-L1 (red), F4–80 (yellow), pan-cytokeratin (white), and DAPI counterstained nuclei (blue) for parental tumors E, G, H, and I and corresponding orthotopic and subcutaneous mTDT. White scale bar, 20 mm. B, The percentage of stroma in orthotopic (orange circles) and subcutaneous (purple triangles) mTDT. C–F, The cell density (number per mm2) of CD8 (C), PD-L1 (D), F4–80 (E), and pSMAD2 (F) in mTDT from four infiltrated parents grown in orthotopic (n ¼ 5; orange circles) versus subcutaneous (n ¼ 4; purple triangle) sites. G, Tumor growth curves of mTDT from six infiltrated families treated with anti–PD-L1 (purple) versus control antibody (black dash). H, Overall survival curve for mTDT from six infiltrated families treated with control IgG (black dash; n ¼ 27) or anti–PD-L1 (purple; n ¼ 31). I, Combined Kaplan–Meier survival graph of mTDT from family B (red), family E (green), G (pink), H (orange), I (blue), and K (gold). Cox regression analysis table of factors affecting survival of mTDT shown as Kaplan–Meier. , P < 0.05; , P < 0.001.
Cd279 (Pd 1) Bv605, supplied by Becton Dickinson, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/product/cwith+goat+anti+cd45+antibody/annexin+v/pm36949064-257-49-52
Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
cd279 (pd-1) bv605 - by Bioz Stars, 2026-09
90/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier

Image Search Results


Figure 3. Comparison of orthotopic and subcutaneous mTDT response to anti–PD-L1. A, Representative images of multiplex staining for CD8þ T cells (green), pSMAD2 (mauve), PD-L1 (red), F4–80 (yellow), pan-cytokeratin (white), and DAPI counterstained nuclei (blue) for parental tumors E, G, H, and I and corresponding orthotopic and subcutaneous mTDT. White scale bar, 20 mm. B, The percentage of stroma in orthotopic (orange circles) and subcutaneous (purple triangles) mTDT. C–F, The cell density (number per mm2) of CD8 (C), PD-L1 (D), F4–80 (E), and pSMAD2 (F) in mTDT from four infiltrated parents grown in orthotopic (n ¼ 5; orange circles) versus subcutaneous (n ¼ 4; purple triangle) sites. G, Tumor growth curves of mTDT from six infiltrated families treated with anti–PD-L1 (purple) versus control antibody (black dash). H, Overall survival curve for mTDT from six infiltrated families treated with control IgG (black dash; n ¼ 27) or anti–PD-L1 (purple; n ¼ 31). I, Combined Kaplan–Meier survival graph of mTDT from family B (red), family E (green), G (pink), H (orange), I (blue), and K (gold). Cox regression analysis table of factors affecting survival of mTDT shown as Kaplan–Meier. , P < 0.05; , P < 0.001.

Journal: Cancer Research

Article Title: Mammary Tumor–Derived Transplants as Breast Cancer Models to Evaluate Tumor–Immune Interactions and Therapeutic Responses

doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.can-21-0253

Figure Lengend Snippet: Figure 3. Comparison of orthotopic and subcutaneous mTDT response to anti–PD-L1. A, Representative images of multiplex staining for CD8þ T cells (green), pSMAD2 (mauve), PD-L1 (red), F4–80 (yellow), pan-cytokeratin (white), and DAPI counterstained nuclei (blue) for parental tumors E, G, H, and I and corresponding orthotopic and subcutaneous mTDT. White scale bar, 20 mm. B, The percentage of stroma in orthotopic (orange circles) and subcutaneous (purple triangles) mTDT. C–F, The cell density (number per mm2) of CD8 (C), PD-L1 (D), F4–80 (E), and pSMAD2 (F) in mTDT from four infiltrated parents grown in orthotopic (n ¼ 5; orange circles) versus subcutaneous (n ¼ 4; purple triangle) sites. G, Tumor growth curves of mTDT from six infiltrated families treated with anti–PD-L1 (purple) versus control antibody (black dash). H, Overall survival curve for mTDT from six infiltrated families treated with control IgG (black dash; n ¼ 27) or anti–PD-L1 (purple; n ¼ 31). I, Combined Kaplan–Meier survival graph of mTDT from family B (red), family E (green), G (pink), H (orange), I (blue), and K (gold). Cox regression analysis table of factors affecting survival of mTDT shown as Kaplan–Meier. , P < 0.05; , P < 0.001.

Article Snippet: Slides were then incubated overnight at 4 Cwith primary antibodies as follows: CD3e monoclonal antibody (SP7; Thermo Fisher Scientific; cat. #MA5-14524, RRID: AB_10982026, 1:100), anti-CD8 (Abcam; cat. #ab4055, RRID:AB_304247, 1:100), CD11b (M1/70; BioLegend; cat. #101201, RRID: AB_312784, 1:100), purified anti-mouse CD45 (30-F11; BioLegend cat#103101, RRID: AB_312966, 1:100), pSMAD2 (Cell Signaling; cat. #3122S, RRID: AB_823638, 1:50), F480monoclonal antibody (SP115; Thermo Fisher Scientific; cat. #MA516363, RRID: AB_2537882, 1:100), anti-wide spectrum cytokeratin antibody (Abcam; cat#ab9377, RRID: AB_307222, 1:200) and recombinant anti–PD-L1 antibody (EPR20529; Abcam; cat. #ab213480, RRID: AB_2773715, 1:50).

Techniques: Comparison, Multiplex Assay, Staining, Control