ArticleKidney international reports2023
Immunofluorescence Staining for IgG Subclass: Cause for Discrepancy in the Detection of IgG1.
Article in Kidney international reports, 2023. 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.
- Differing Sensitivity of Antibodies Against IgG1 Explains the Discrepancy in the Detection of IgG1: A Validation Study.Kidney international reports · 2025Article
- Development of a Sensitive Monoclonal Antibody-Based Colloidal Gold Immunochromatographic Strip for Lomefloxacin Detection in Meat Products.Foods (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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Immunofluorescence (IF) staining for IgG subclasses plays an important role in the classification of kidney disease. However, widely used IgG subclass-specific antibodies are now commercially unavailable. Thus, we compared alternative antibodies for performing IgG subclass staining. Methods: A total of 21 cases were stained by 3 different methods: direct IF using fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC)-conjugated polyclonal antibodies against IgG1-4 (commercially unavailable method), direct IF using FITC-conjugated monoclonal antibodies (clones HP-6091, 6014, 6050, and 6025), indirect IF using monoclonal antibodies (clones HP-6069, 6002, 6050, and 6025), and FITC-conjugated polyclonal secondary antibody. For cases with discrepancy in IgG1 staining, additional direct IF using FITC-conjugated monoclonal antibody (clone 4E3) was performed. Results: Of 21 cases, 11 (52%) had no staining for IgG1 by direct IF using the clone HP-6091 despite ≥1+ staining by the direct IF using polyclonal antibodies. Similarly, direct IF for IgG1 using the clone 4E3 had negative result in all 10 cases with available tissue. However, indirect IF for IgG1 using the clone HP-6069 had similar staining intensity (within 1 order of magnitude) as direct IF using the polyclonal antibodies (10 of 10). Results of IF for IgG2, IgG3, and IgG4 were similar in most cases. Conclusion: The choice of antibodies influences the result of IgG subclass staining, especially for anti-IgG1 antibodies, in which 2 monoclonal antibodies (HP6091 and 4E3) appear less sensitive. Although this may be due to unaccounted variables and requires confirmation, our results may partially explain the difference in IgG1 staining in the literature and underscore the need for careful validation.
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.