Anti-Mouse IFNAR-1 – Purified in vivo GOLD™ Functional Grade
Pricing & Details
This antibody was produced by In vivo genetic immunization of IFNAR1 knockout mice with a plasmid encoding the extracellular domain of murine IFNAR1.
≥ 5.0 mg/ml
< 1.0 EU/mg as determined by the LAL method
≥95% monomer by analytical SEC
>95% by SDS Page
This monoclonal antibody is aseptically packaged and formulated in 0.01 M phosphate buffered saline (150 mM NaCl) PBS pH 7.2 - 7.4 with no carrier protein, potassium, calcium or preservatives added. Due to inherent biochemical properties of antibodies, certain products may be prone to precipitation over time. Precipitation may be removed by aseptic centrifugation and/or filtration.
Functional grade preclinical antibodies are manufactured in an animal free facility using only In vitro protein free cell culture techniques and are purified by a multi-step process including the use of protein A or G to assure extremely low levels of endotoxins, leachable protein A or aggregates.
Storage and Handling
Functional grade preclinical antibodies may be stored sterile as received at 2-8°C for up to one month. For longer term storage, aseptically aliquot in working volumes without diluting and store at -80°C. Avoid Repeated Freeze Thaw Cycles.
Country of Origin
Next Day 2-8°C
Applications and Recommended Usage?
Quality Tested by Leinco
FC The suggested concentration for clone MAR1-5A3 antibody for staining cells in flow cytometry is ≤ 2.0 μg per 106 cells in a volume of 100 μl or 100μl of whole blood. Titration of the reagent is recommended for optimal performance for each application. NOTE: Leinco Technologies suggests using Anti-Mouse IFNAR1-Biotin (With Streptavidin - PE; Part No. S211) (Leinco Product No.: I-402) for flow cytometry of mouse cells
Other Applications Reported In Literature ?
B Clone MAR1-5A3 has a short half-life due to the rapid recycling of cells that express the IFNAR1 receptor. In order to block function In vivo, continual blocking of all compartments is necessary. Therefore, a large loading dose is necessary to saturate all In vivo binding sites and should be maintained to ensure binding site saturation. For In vivo blocking studies, a loading dose of 2.5 mg/mouse, followed by a weekly dose of 0.5 mg/mouse is recommended. The half-life following a 2.5 mg loading dose is approximately 5 days. However, if you fail to saturate the binding sites by injecting a low dose of 250 μg, for example, the half life is only 1.5 days.
WB For Western blotting, the suggested use of this reagent is 1.0 µg per ml (See Data Results) IP
Each investigator should determine their own optimal working dilution for specific applications. See directions on lot specific datasheets, as information may periodically change.
Clone MAR1-5A3 recognizes an epitope on mouse IFNAR1.
IFNAR1 and IFNAR2 are coexpressed on nearly all cells.
IFNAR1 is a type I membrane protein, that in conjunction with IFNAR2, makes up the heterodimeric receptor that binds all type I IFNs, which includes IFN α and β. Binding and activation of the receptor stimulates Janus protein kinases, which leads to the phosphorylation of several other proteins, namely STAT1 and STAT2. IFNAR1 has also been shown to interact with PRMT1 and Tyrosine kinase 2. Type I IFNs are a family of cytokines that have been shown to promote anti-viral, anti-microbial, anti-tumor and autoimmune responses In vivo.
NCBI Gene Bank ID
References & Citations
1.) Beaver, Jacob T. et al. (2020) Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics 16:9, 2092-2108 Article Link
2.) Theofilopoulos, AN. et al. (2012) J Immunol. 189: 000–000. Article Link
3.) Oldstone, Michael B. A. et al. (2017) Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 114(14): 3708–3713. PubMed
4.) Schreiber, RD et al. (2015) PLoS One.10(5):e0128636PubMed
5.) Shin, Haina et al. (2018) J Virol. 92(7): e00038-18. PubMed
6.) Crack, Peter J. et al. (2016) eNeuro 10.1523/ENEURO.0128-15.2016 Article Link
7.) Sheehan, K. C. F. et al. (2006) JICR 26(11):804
8.) Dunn, G. P. et al. (2005) Nat. Immunol. 6(7):722
9.) Fenner, J. E. et al. (2006) Nat. Immunol. 7(1):33
10). Biron, C. A. et al. (2007) J Exp Med. 204(10): 2383
11.) Raju, S et al. (2019) Cell Reports. 29(9):2556–2564.e3 Journal Link
12.) Ortiz, A. et al. (2019) Cancer Cell 35(1):33-45.e6 Journal Link
13.) Case, J. et al. (2020) Cell Host & Microbe. 28(3):465–474.e4 Journal Link
14.) Hassan, A. et al. (2020) Cell. 183(1):169–184.e13 Journal Link
15.) Hassan, A. et al. (2020) Cell. 182(3):744–753.e4 Journal Link
16.) Hassan, A. et al. (2020) Cell. 182(3):901-918.e18 Journal Link
17.) Stine, R. et al. (2019) Cell Stem Cell. 25(6):830–845.e8 Journal Link
18.) White, J. et al. (2018) Cell 175(5):1198-1212.e12 Journal Link
19.) Jagger et al. (2017) Cell Host & Microbe. 22:366–376 Journal Link
20.) Richner, J. et al. (2017) Cell 170(2):273-283.e12 Journal Link
21.) Richner, J. et al. (2017) Cell 168(6):1114-1125.e10 Journal Link
22.) Best, S. et al. (2021) Cell Reports 37(4):109888 Journal Link
23.) Diamond, M. et al. (2021) Cell 184(17):Pages 4414-4429.e19 Journal Link
24.) Ahmed, H.et al. (2021) Cell Reports 36(4): 109452 Journal Link
25.) Lebratti, T.et al. (2021) eLife 10: e65762 Journal Link
26.) Gambino Jr., F.et al. (2021) Cell Reports 35(6): 109107 Journal Link
27.) Earnest, J. et al. (2021) Cell Reports 35(1): 108962 Journal Link
28.) Desai, P. et al. (2021) Cell 184(5):1214-1231.e16 Journal Link
29.) Jagger, B. et al. (2017) Cell Host Microbe 22(3):366-376.e3 Journal Link
30.) VanBlargan, L. et al. (2018) Cell Reports 25(12):10.1016 Journal Link
31.) Lim, J. et al. (2019) eLife 8(e44452):10.7554 Journal Link