(S)-ErSO
目录号 : GC63526
(S)-ErSO 是一种右旋的 ErSO。(S)-ErSO 在MCF-7 没有效果。
Cas No.:2407860-34-6
Sample solution is provided at 25 µL, 10mM.
;)
,-1-7$$$37316672.jpg');)
;)
;)
$$$36806353.jpg');)
;33(7)%EF%BC%9A546-561$$$37156877.jpg');)
;)
;)
;)
%201124-1138.$$$35908550.jpg');)
%20766-780.$$$37100057.jpg');)
%20418-432.$$$36893736.jpg');)
%EF%BC%9A-240-255.$$$35108512.jpg');)
533-545$$$36543525.jpg');)
%201-13.$$$36600053.jpg');)
;)
Quality Control & SDS
- View current batch:
- Purity: >99.00%
- COA (Certificate Of Analysis)
- SDS (Safety Data Sheet)
- Datasheet
(S)-ErSO is the dextrorotatory enantiomer of ErSO. (S)-ErSO is inactive in MCF-7 cells (from patent WO2020009958A1, compound (s)-105)[1].
(-)-ErSO induces dose-dependent death of MCF-7 cells. (+)-l05 is inactive[1].
[1]. David J. Shapiro, et al. Activators of the unfolded protein response. WO2020009958A1.
| Cas No. | 2407860-34-6 | SDF | |
| 分子式 | C22H13F6NO3 | 分子量 | 453.33 |
| 溶解度 | DMSO : 190 mg/mL (419.12 mM; Need ultrasonic) | 储存条件 | 4°C, away from moisture and light |
| General tips | 请根据产品在不同溶剂中的溶解度选择合适的溶剂配制储备液；一旦配成溶液，请分装保存，避免反复冻融造成的产品失效。 储备液的保存方式和期限：-80°C 储存时，请在 6 个月内使用，-20°C 储存时，请在 1 个月内使用。 为了提高溶解度，请将管子加热至37℃，然后在超声波浴中震荡一段时间。 |
||
| Shipping Condition | 评估样品解决方案：配备蓝冰进行发货。所有其他可用尺寸：配备RT，或根据请求配备蓝冰。 | ||
| 制备储备液 | |||
 |
1 mg | 5 mg | 10 mg |
| 1 mM | 2.2059 mL | 11.0295 mL | 22.059 mL |
| 5 mM | 0.4412 mL | 2.2059 mL | 4.4118 mL |
| 10 mM | 0.2206 mL | 1.1029 mL | 2.2059 mL |
| 第一步：请输入基本实验信息（考虑到实验过程中的损耗，建议多配一只动物的药量） | ||||||||||
| 给药剂量 | mg/kg |  |
动物平均体重 | g | |
每只动物给药体积 | ul | |
动物数量 | 只 |
| 第二步：请输入动物体内配方组成（配方适用于不溶于水的药物；不同批次药物配方比例不同，请联系GLPBIO为您提供正确的澄清溶液配方） | ||||||||||
| % DMSO % % Tween 80 % saline | ||||||||||
| 计算重置 | ||||||||||
计算结果:
工作液浓度： mg/ml；
DMSO母液配制方法： mg 药物溶于 μL DMSO溶液（母液浓度 mg/mL，
体内配方配制方法：取 μL DMSO母液，加入 μL PEG300，混匀澄清后加入μL Tween 80，混匀澄清后加入 μL saline，混匀澄清。
1. 首先保证母液是澄清的；
2.
一定要按照顺序依次将溶剂加入，进行下一步操作之前必须保证上一步操作得到的是澄清的溶液，可采用涡旋、超声或水浴加热等物理方法助溶。
3. 以上所有助溶剂都可在 GlpBio 网站选购。
Work Flexibility and Work-Related Well-Being
Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021 Mar 21;18(6):3254.PMID:33801122DOI:10.3390/ijerph18063254.
Work organization practices, including work flexibility, are changing and can affect worker well-being. Common work flexibility types include working at home, taking time off when needed, and changing one'S work schedule. Given the changes in and the importance of work flexibility, the study assesses its prevalence and association with worker well-being in the United States. We used 2002-2018 General Social Survey-Quality of Worklife (GSS-QWL) data, descriptive statistics, and regression analyses to assess the reported likelihood of job stress, job satisfaction, healthy days, and days with activity limitations among workers reporting work flexibility. The prevalence of work flexibility remained relatively stable during the period examined. Working at home increased the likelihood of job stress by 22% and job satisfaction by 65%. Taking time off decreased the likelihood of job stress by 56% and days with activity limitations by 24%, and more than doubled the likelihood of job satisfaction. Changing one'S schedule decreased the likelihood of job stress by 20% and increased the likelihood of job satisfaction by 62%. This study used all the available data from GSS-QWL and demonstrated the ongoing importance of work flexibility for well-being.
Employment arrangement, job stress, and health-related quality of life
Saf Sci 2017 Dec;100(A):46-56.PMID:29097848DOI:10.1016/j.ssci.2017.05.003.
Objective: We aimed to understand the characteristics of U.S. workers in non-standard employment arrangements, and to assess associations between job stress and Health-related Quality of Life (HRQL) by employment arrangement. Background: As employers struggle to stay in business under increasing economic pressures, they may rely more on non-standard employment arrangements, thereby increasing the pool of contingent workers. Worker exposure to job stress may vary by employment arrangement. Excessive exposure to stressors at work is considered to be a potential health hazard, and may adversely affect health and HRQL. Methods: We used the Quality of Worklife (QWL) module which supplemented the General Social Survey (GSS) in 2002, 2006, 2010, and 2014. GSS is a biannual, nationally representative cross-sectional survey of U.S. households that yields a representative sample of the civilian, non-institutionalized, English-speaking, U.S. adult population. The QWL module assesses an array of psychosocial working conditions and quality of work life topics among GSS respondents. We used pooled QWL responses from 2002 to 2014 by only those who reported being employed at the time of the survey. After adjusting for sampling probabilities, including subsampling for non-respondents and correcting for the number of adults in the household, 6005 respondents were included in our analyses. We grouped respondents according to their employment arrangement, including: (i) independent contractors (contractor), (ii) on call workers (on call), (iii) workers paid by a temporary agency (temporary), (iv) workers who work for a contractor (under contract), or (v) workers in standard employment arrangements (standard). Respondents were further grouped into those who were stressed and those who were not stressed at work. Descriptive population prevalence rates were calculated by employment arrangement for select demographic and organizational characteristics, psychosocial working conditions, work-family balance, and health and well-being outcomes. We also assessed the effect of employment arrangement on job stress, and whether job stress was associated with the number of reported unhealthy days and days with activity limitations. These two health and well-being outcomes capture aspects of worker HRQL. Results: Our results underscored the importance of employment arrangement in understanding job stress and associated worker health and well-being outcomes. Between 2002 and 2014, the prevalence of workers in non-standard employment arrangements increased from 19% to 21%; however, the observed trend did not monotonically increase during that period. Compared with workers in standard arrangements, independent contractors and on call workers were significantly less likely to report experiencing job stress. For workers in standard arrangements and for contractors, we observed significant association between perceived job stress and reported unhealthy days. We observed a similar association for reported days with activity limitations, for workers in standard and temporary arrangements. Conclusion: The major contribution of our study was to highlight the differences in job stress and HRQL by employment arrangement. Our results demonstrated the importance of studying each of these employment arrangements separately and in depth. Furthermore, employment arrangement was an important predictor of job stress, and compared with non-stressed workers, stressed workers across all employment arrangements reported more unhealthy days and more days with activity limitations.