Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17496224›Full record

ArticleJournal of biomolecular techniques : JBT2007

Comparison of doxycycline delivery methods for Tet-inducible gene expression in a subcutaneous xenograft model.

Christopher Cawthorne, Ric Swindell, Ian J Stratford, Caroline Dive, Arkadiusz Welman

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of biomolecular techniques : JBT, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

49 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 71 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Christopher CawthorneCancer Research UK, Paterson Institute for Cancer Research, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Ric Swindell
Ian J Stratford
Caroline Dive
Arkadiusz Welman
Cancer Research UK Manchester Institute · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council G0500366
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Doxycycline (Dox) controlled Tet systems provide a powerful and commonly used method for functional studies on the consequences of gene overexpression/downregulation. However, whereas Dox delivery in tissue culture in vitro is relatively simple, the situation in vivo is more complex. Several methods of Dox delivery in vivo have been described-e.g., in drinking water containing alcohol, in drinking water containing various concentrations of sucrose, and in feed. Unfortunately there are no reports directly comparing the advantages and disadvantages of these diverse methods, and there is no generally accepted standard. We therefore compared four non-invasive methods of Dox delivery in vivo-in drinking water, by gavage, as a jelly, and in standard feed. To assess the delivery of Dox by these methods, we used a subcutaneous xenograft model based on colorectal carcinoma cells engineered for Dox-inducible expression of an activated mutant of c-Src and the luciferase reporter gene. Our results indicate that feed represents the most favorable method of Dox administration.

Indexed as

Transplantation, HeterologousAnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsCell Line, TumorColonic NeoplasmsDoxycyclineGene Expression Regulation, NeoplasticHumansInjections, SubcutaneousMiceNeoplasm Transplantationsrc-Family KinasesAnti-Bacterial AgentsDoxycyclinesrc-Family Kinases

Identifiers

PMID17496224
PMCPMC2062538
OpenAlexW2121562613

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.