Rat IgG_2a Isotype Control [Clone 1-1] — Purified in vivo PLATINUM™ Functional Grade

There is no specific information available about a clone named "1-1" being used in in vivo mouse studies based on the provided search results. However, I can provide general information on how clones are used in in vivo studies, particularly focusing on antibody clones like the 4C11 clone used for studying PD-1 in mice.

Use of Clones in In Vivo Studies

1. Antibody Clones for Immunotherapy:

   • Clones like the 4C11, which targets PD-1, are used in immunotherapy to block the PD-1 pathway. This pathway is crucial in regulating immune responses and can be exploited to enhance anti-tumor immunity. The 4C11 clone has been shown to improve survival and tumor regression in mouse models by blocking PD-1, thus preventing it from dampening T-cell responses against tumors.

2. Genetic Tagging for Clonal Analysis:

   • In studies involving cardiac progenitors, clones are identified by genetic tagging using lentiviral vectors. This allows researchers to track the clonal expansion of specific progenitor cells and their lineage commitment over time.

3. Targeting Specific Progenitors:

   • Techniques like CLoNe enable researchers to target and label progenitor cells in specific tissues, such as the brain or muscles, allowing for the study of clonal development and interclonal relationships.

If you are looking for specific information about a "1-1" clone, it might be necessary to consult more targeted or specialized research literature.

The specific identity of "1-1" is ambiguous, as it could denote either an antibody clone (such as a designation like "CD11a (1-1)" or "ICAM-1 (1-1)") or a protein epitope recognized by a particular antibody. In the immunology literature, antibody clone names like "1-1" are often used with additional antibodies or markers in experiments such as flow cytometry, immunofluorescence, or immunoprecipitation. Commonly, these experiments combine "1-1" with antibodies against related cell surface markers, cytokines, or intracellular proteins to characterize cell populations, signaling pathways, or functional responses.

Common categories of antibodies or proteins used with a given antibody (like 1-1):

• Isotype controls: Used to assess antibody specificity.
• Other lineage markers: For example, CD3, CD4, CD8, CD19, CD45 to define immune subpopulations.
• Activation or differentiation markers: Such as CD25, CD69, CD44, or cytokine antibodies (e.g., IFN-?, IL-2).
• Secondary antibodies: Labeled antibodies against the primary species (e.g., anti-mouse IgG).
• Functional proteins or blocking antibodies: For studying signaling, cell depletion, or receptor function.
• Fluorescent or enzymatic tags: To enable detection in flow cytometry or immunohistochemistry.
• Adjuvants or carrier proteins: Such as BSA or ovalbumin, to boost immune response or as experimental controls in immunization studies.

Additional notes:

• If "1-1" refers to a specific clone (for example, anti-LFA-1, clone 1-1), it is often used alongside antibodies for other integrins, adhesion molecules (e.g., ICAM-1), or T cell markers to assess cell adhesion or immune function.
• If "1-1" is a protein, it is frequently probed with antibodies against interacting proteins or pathway components.

Without more details about the specific target or clone, these are general classes of antibodies/proteins typically used together in the literature for immunological assays. If you specify the protein or antibody target, a list of exact commonly co-used antibodies can be provided.

Key findings from "clone 1-1" citations in the scientific literature primarily relate to two distinct themes: research on synthetic code clones in software engineering and the issue of cloned (fake) scientific journals. Below are the essential findings as directly supported by the available sources.

1. Synthetic Clone Pair Dataset Generation in Software Engineering

• Researchers are developing automated methods to generate synthetic clone pair datasets using approaches such as context-sensitive grammatical evolution (CSGE) and large language models (LLMs).
• A literature review in this field identified that very few publications directly address the automatic creation of synthetic code clone datasets, indicating a research gap.
• The review process filtered 75 initial articles down to only 3 as directly relevant, with a few more as possibly relevant—demonstrating the novelty and limited prior work in this specialized area.

2. Cloned (Fake) Journals in Science Publishing

• Cloned journals are fraudulent copies of legitimate journals, often created to attract authors seeking rapid publication or low-fee open access.
• Key findings from surveys and reviews include:
  • Multiple causes drive authors to publish in cloned journals, with the most cited motivation being low-cost open access (86% agreement among surveyed authors).
  • Authors are largely aware of the negative consequences of publishing in cloned journals—such as the risk of harming scientific progress or misleading future research—but still pursue publication, often for personal academic benefit.
  • The dissemination of unreviewed or low-quality research through cloned journals threatens the integrity of scientific publishing, undermining peer review and potentially introducing unreliable information into systematic reviews and medical guidelines.
  • Cloned journals have affected high-profile legitimate journals, with thousands of articles published in these fraudulent venues each year. The threat is persistent, as new clones continue to appear regularly.

Comparison Table: Synthetic Code Clones vs. Cloned Journals

Summary:

• In software engineering, "clone 1-1" citations most often reference highly specific work on automating the creation of software code clone datasets, where research is sparse.
• In scientific publishing, "cloned" journals refer to fraudulent operations that mimic real journals to mislead researchers, posing a significant threat to research reliability, with widespread recognition of both the causes and dangers among authors.

Dosing regimens of clone 1-1 in mouse models are not explicitly detailed in the provided search results; however, best practices and variation in dosing for similar antibody clones (such as anti–PD-1 and anti–PD-L1 antibodies) offer guidance that can be adapted for clone 1-1, especially if it is used in analogous contexts.

Key points based on antibody dosing in mouse models:

• Typical dose ranges for in vivo mouse antibodies (e.g., checkpoint inhibitors like anti–PD-1 or anti–PD-L1) are 100–500?µg per mouse per dose (or roughly 5–10?mg/kg if dosed by body weight).
• Administration routes are most commonly intraperitoneal (IP) or intravenous (IV), with IV more frequent for pharmacokinetic studies and IP common in efficacy studies.
• Dosing schedules vary:
  • Anti–PD-1 antibodies: every 3–4 days, or 3 total doses at 3-day intervals.
  • Anti–PD-L1 antibodies: 2–3 times per week; both single-dose and multiple-dose regimens are used in different experimental designs.
  • Some studies specify biweekly administration (twice per week) for repeated dosing, particularly in pharmacokinetic or efficacy studies.

Variation across mouse models:

• Syngeneic tumor models (such as MC38, B16 melanoma, or TC-1) often use 200–500?µg per injection, adjusted for the size and sensitivity of the model.
• Models of chronic infection or immune exhaustion also use similar dosing, but frequency may be tailored to the expected pharmacodynamic response.

Pharmacokinetic differences can affect dosing frequency and amount:

• Higher clearance rates or different expression levels of the antibody's target may require increased dose or more frequent administration.
• The route of administration (IV vs IP) and mouse strain (e.g., CD1 versus C57BL/6) can further influence regimen design.

If you are inquiring specifically about clone 1-1 (rather than examples like RMP1-14 or 10F.9G2), and it is an antibody against a similar target, adaptation of these regimens is appropriate unless otherwise indicated by data on its pharmacokinetics, binding specificity, or in vivo potency. Always validate chosen dosing in the specific context of your study and mouse model.

If additional details about clone 1-1 (target, isotype, and in vivo stability) are available, consult product-specific or primary literature for any clone-specific optimization.