Fig 2: mAb ELTD1 probe has significantly higher binding specificity against the tumour. A, Molecular probe construct. Gd-DTPA signal was used to detect the probe via MR imaging while the biotin tag allowed for localization in the tumour tissue post-termination. B, Per cent relative expression of our molecular probes indicates a change in either T1 Relaxation or SI due to the presence of the Gd-DTPA component. The mAb-attached probe had significantly higher signal intensity and T1 relaxation time than the IgG control (T1: *P = .0307 (IgG vs pAb ELTD1 probe), ***P = .0002 (IgG vs mAb ELTD1 probe); SI: **P = .008 (IgG vs mAb ELTD1 probe)), (C, D) localization and clustering of our monoclonal-attached molecular probes (C) and non-specific IgG-attached molecular probe (D). E, Kinetics of the antibody-attached probes, non-specific IgG control, pAb and mAb against ELTD1. F-H, Representative images (20×) stained with SA-HRP to localize the non-specific IgG-attached probes (F), pAb-attached probe (G) and mAb-attached probe (H) at tumour maximum (TV: 120-160 mm2). The brown staining seen in the pAb- and mAb-attached probes is the localized probes

Fig 3: mAb treatment against ELTD1 decrease Notch1 levels. A-D, Representative images (20×) of IHC stained tumours with Notch1 of untreated (A), pAb treatment (B), mAb treated (C) and contralateral control (D). E, Quantitative positivity Notch staining of the samples. mAb against ELTD1-treated mice significantly lowered Notch levels when compared to both untreated and pAb-treated animals. There was no significant difference between untreated vs pAb treatment, and mAb treatment and contralateral (healthy control). Contralateral (Cont) tissue Notch levels were significantly lower than untreated mice and pAb-treated animals (*P = .0357 (mAb vs pAb), **P = .0015 (Cont vs pAb), ***P = .0006 (UT vs mAb), ****P < .0001 (UT vs Cont))