ArticleGlycobiology2022
The incorrect use of CD75 as a synonym for ST6GAL1 has fostered the expansion of commercial "ST6GAL1" antibodies that do not recognize ST6GAL1.
Article in Glycobiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- IgA displays site- and subclass-specific glycoform differences despite equal glycoenzyme expression.Cell communication and signaling : CCS · 2025Article
- Current look at the most promising proteomic and glycomic biomarkers of bladder cancer.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2024Review
- ST6GAL1 sialyltransferase promotes acinar to ductal metaplasia and pancreatic cancer progression.JCI insight · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
The ST6GAL1 Golgi sialyltransferase is upregulated in many human malignancies, however, detection of ST6GAL1 protein in cancer tissues has been hindered by the prior lack of antibodies. Recently, numerous commercial antibodies for ST6GAL1 have become available, however, many of these do not, in fact, recognize ST6GAL1. Decades ago, the CD75 cell-surface epitope was mistakenly suggested to be the same molecule as ST6GAL1. While this was rapidly disproven, the use of CD75 as a synonym for ST6GAL1 has persisted, particularly by companies selling "ST6GAL1" antibodies. CD75 is reportedly a sialylated epitope which appears to encompass a range of glycan structures and glycan carriers. In this study, we evaluated the LN1 and ZB55 monoclonal antibodies, which are advertised as ST6GAL1 antibodies but were initially developed as CD75-recognizing antibodies (neither was raised against ST6GAL1 as the immunogen). Importantly, the LN1 and ZB55 antibodies have been widely used by investigators, as well as the Human Protein Atlas database, to characterize ST6GAL1 expression. Herein, we used cell and mouse models with controlled expression of ST6GAL1 to compare LN1 and ZB55 with an extensively validated polyclonal antibody to ST6GAL1. We find that LN1 and ZB55 do not recognize ST6GAL1, and furthermore, these 2 antibodies recognize different targets. Additionally, we utilized the well-validated ST6GAL1 antibody to determine that ST6GAL1 is overexpressed in bladder cancer, a finding that contradicts prior studies which employed LN1 to suggest ST6GAL1 is downregulated in bladder cancer. Collectively, our studies underscore the need for careful validation of antibodies purported to recognize ST6GAL1.
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.