ArticleMethodsX2020
Comparison of three different ELISAs for the detection of recombinant, native and plasma IL-17A.
Article in MethodsX, 2020. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Circulating Interleukins as Biomarkers in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients: A Pilot Study Compared to Normal Individuals.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Plasma IL-17A detection in Langerhans Cell Histiocytosis (LCH) is currently a source of debate. Indeed, 500-P07G (PeproTech) and 41802 (R&D Systems) anti-IL-17A antibodies have been suspected to recognize nonspecific proteins. To resolve this discrepancy, we set up two new ELISAs by using 41802 or neutralizing eBio64CAP17 (eBioscience) capture monoclonal antibodies that we compared to the commercial PeproTech ELISA kit. The three ELISAs, called E_500-P07G, E_41802 and E_eBio64CAP17, differ in their anti-IL-17A capture antibodies: either polyclonal, monoclonal or neutralizing monoclonal antibodies, respectively. Here, we show that these ELISAs had a similar capacity to specifically detect recombinant or native human IL-17A. However, a significantly lower plasma IL-17A detection was obtained with E_41802 compared to the two other ELISAs. Both E_500-P07G and E_eBio64CAP17 showed similar results. Consequently, we propose that the use of E_500-P07G and E_eBio64CAP17 may ensure more accurate and reliable results in the context of LCH studies. The highest plasma IL-17A levels in LCH patients compared to controls detected by both E_500-P07G and E_eBio64CAP17 ELISAs led us to propose these latter as reference techniques to investigate IL-17A as a potential new biomarker in LCH.•The customization of a new E_eBio64CAP17 ELISA is suitable to detect human IL-17A.•E_eBio64CAP17 ELISA protocol differs only in the anti-IL-17A capture antibody compared to the commercial E_500-P07G PeproTech kit.•Data generated using the E_eBio64CAP17 ELISA are consistent with the PeproTech kit.
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.