ArticleScientific reports2015
Generation of monoclonal antibodies against MGA and comparison of their application in breast cancer detection by immunohistochemistry.
Article in Scientific reports, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Macrophage metabolic reprogramming aggravates aortic dissection through the HIF1α-ADAM17 pathwayEBioMedicine · 2019Article
- Targeting highly expressed extracellular HSP90 in breast cancer stem cells inhibits tumor growth in vitro and in vivo.Cancer biology & therapy · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mammaglobin A (MGA) is an organ specific molecular biomarker for metastatic breast cancer diagnosis. However, there are still needs to develop optimal monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) to detect MGA expression in breast carcinoma by immunohistochemistry. In this study, we first generated mAbs against MGA. Then, we used epitope prediction and computer-assisted structural analysis to screen five dominant epitopes and identified mAbs against five epitopes. Further immunohistochemical analysis on 42 breast carcinoma specimens showed that MHG1152 and MGD785 had intensive staining mainly in membrane, while CHH11617, CHH995 and MJF656 had more intensive staining within the cytoplasm. MGA scoring results showed that MJF656 had the highest rate (92.8%) of positive staining among five mAbs, including higher staining intensity when compared with that of MHG1152 (p < 0.01) and CHH995 (p < 0.05) and the highest the mean percentage of cells stained among mAbs. Furthermore, we analyzed the relationship of positive staining rate by mAbs with patient clinical characteristics. The results suggest that MJF656 was able to detect MGA expression, especially in early clinical stage, low grade and lymph node metastasis-negative breast carcinoma. In conclusion, our study generated five mAbs against MGA and identified the best candidate for detection of MGA expression in breast cancer tissues.
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.