Clinical Chemistry Link to Randox Laboratories Web Site
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Clinical Chemistry 28: 532-537, 1982;
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit an electronic Letter to
the Editor about this paper
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Pieslor, P. C.
Right arrow Articles by Reba, R. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Pieslor, P. C.
Right arrow Articles by Reba, R. C.

Clinical Chemistry, Vol 28, 532-537, Copyright © 1982 by American Association for Clinical Chemistry

Three radioligands compared for determining cytoplasmic estrogen- receptor content of human breast carcinomas

PC Pieslor, RE Gibson, WC Eckelman, KK Oates, B Cook and RC Reba

We compared three radioligands for use in a cytoplasmic estrogen- receptor assay, using pooled cytosol from human breast adenocarcinomas. The estrogen receptor content was determined in vitro by a dextran- coated charcoal method involving a 4-h incubation with and without diethylstilbestrol. Tritiated moxestrol failed to come to equilibrium in 4 h, thereby preventing the use of conventional one-component Scatchard analysis. The use of 125I-labeled estradiol resulted in a higher estimate of estrogen-receptor concentration than that obtained with use of tritiated estradiol. This overestimation was not corrected by Scatchard, double-reciprocal, or Woolf plots, or by two different methods of data analysis: least squared and "robust." An underestimation of the specific activity of iodoestradiol with respect to that of tritiated estradiol and an unrecognized second component of nonreceptor binding could explain this disparity.


The following articles in journals at HighWire Press have cited this article:


Home page
 EndocrinologyHome page
G. G. J. M. Kuiper, B. Carlsson, K. Grandien, E. Enmark, J. Haggblad, S. Nilsson, and J.-A. Gustafsson
Comparison of the Ligand Binding Specificity and Transcript Tissue Distribution of Estrogen Receptors {alpha} and {beta}
Endocrinology, March 1, 1997; 138(3): 863 - 870.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1982 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry.