ArticleBMC immunology2001
Flow cytometric assessment of the reactivity of a panel of monoclonal antibodies (mAb) against two populations of human dendritic cells (DC).
Article in BMC immunology, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Lack of dendritic cell mobilization into the peripheral blood of cancer patients following standard- or high-dose chemotherapy plus granulocyte-colony stimulating factor.Cancer immunology, immunotherapy : CII · 2003Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe identification of antigens on human DC has been a very difficult and elusive task because of the lack of appropriate reagents. Therefore, we evaluated by flow cytometry a panel of mAb that recognize antigens on human DC, aiming to determine the kinetics of DC antigen expression at 7, 14, 21 and 28 days in (i) Dermal DC like cells (Mo-DC) and (ii) Langerhans cell like DC (Mo-LC). In addition we aimed to identify markers for DC subpopulations.
resultsIt was found at day 7, that mAb BG6, HP-F1, BU10, RFD-1, CMRF-44 recognized <20% of Mo-DC. In contrast, 7H5, ZM3.8, CDlb/c, 55K-2, MMR1.16, MMR190.BB3 and L25 reacted with >50% of Mo-DC. Moreover, 7H5, ZM3.8, CMRF-56, CDlb/c, 55K-2, MMR1.16, MMR190.BB3 and L25 showed increased MFI reactivity against Mo-DC. mAb BG6, BU10 and CMRF-44 recognized <20% Mo-LC while RFD-1 reacted with 21% of Mo-LC. In contrast, HP-F1 showed 87% of Mo-LC positive. Also, 7H5, ZM3.8, RFD-7, MR15-2, CDlb/c, 55K-2, MMR1.16, MMR190.BB3 and L25 reacted with >50% of Mo-LC. The increase in % of positive cells was paralleled by MFI increases. At day 14, fourteen mAb recognized >50% of the Mo-DC, while five recognized 20-50% of Mo-DC. BG6 reacted with 7% of the Mo-DC. Nineteen mAb recognized >48% of Mo-LC while BG6 had negative reactivity. At day 21 and 28, all mAb reacted with >20% of Mo-DC and yielded a significant MFI with Mo-DC. Also nineteen mAb yielded significant MFI with Mo-LC while RFD-7 did not.
conclusionsThe immunophenotyping assays demonstrated differences between the two DC populations as well as variations in the reactivity of the mAb at diverse time points, suggesting the existence of subpopulations within the Mo-DC and Mo-LC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.