Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20647316›Full record

ArticleCancer research2010

Reprogramming human cancer cells in the mouse mammary gland.

Karen M Bussard, Corinne A Boulanger, Brian W Booth, Robert D Bruno, Gilbert H Smith

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer research, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 61 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
61citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

61 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Mechanisms of Regulation of Cell Fate in Breast Development and Cancer.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2025
    Review
  6. Clinical Tumor Dormancy.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2024
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Journal of biosciences · 2022
    Review
  10. Review
  11. RNA NFrontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2022
    Review
  12. Intraductal Injections into the Mouse Mammary Gland.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. In Vitro and Ex Vivo Models - The Tumor Microenvironment in a Flask.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2020
    Review
  19. Redirecting Normal and Cancer Stem Cells to a Mammary Epithelial Cell Fate.Journal of mammary gland biology and neoplasia · 2019
    Review
  20. Article

1 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Karen M BussardMammary Biology and Tumorigenesis Laboratory, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, USA.
Corinne A Boulanger
Brian W Booth
Robert D Bruno
Gilbert H Smith

Funding

Biology of Mammary Gland Development and TumorigenesisZIABC010021 · NCI · DIVISION OF BASIC SCIENCES - NCI · PI SMITH, GILBERT · 2009 to 2020
$11.6M
Intramural NIH HHS Z99 CA999999NCI NIH HHS Y99 CA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The tissue microenvironment directs stem/progenitor cell behavior. Cancer cells are also influenced by the microenvironment. It has been shown that, when placed into blastocysts, cancer cells respond to embryonic cues and differentiate according to the tissue type encountered during ontological development. Previously, we showed that the mouse mammary gland was capable of redirecting adult mouse testicular and neural stem/progenitor cells toward a mammary epithelial cell fate during gland regeneration. Here, we report that human embryonal carcinoma cells proliferate and produce differentiated mammary epithelial cell progeny when mixed with mouse mammary epithelial cells and inoculated into the epithelium-free mammary fat pads of athymic nude mice. Fluorescence in situ hybridization confirmed the presence of human cell progeny in the mammary outgrowths for human centromeric DNA, as well as immunochemistry for human-specific breast epithelial cytokeratins and human-specific milk proteins in impregnated transplant hosts. It was found that the number of human cells increased by 66- to 660-fold during mammary epithelial growth and expansion as determined by human cytokeratin expression. All features found in primary outgrowths were recapitulated in the secondary outgrowths from chimeric implants. These results show that human embryonal carcinoma-derived progeny interact with mouse mammary cells during mammary gland regeneration and are directed to differentiate into cells that exhibit diverse mammary epithelial cell phenotypes. This is the first demonstration that human cells are capable of recognizing the signals generated by the mouse mammary gland microenvironment present during gland regeneration in vivo.

Indexed as

AnimalsCarcinoma, EmbryonalCell DifferentiationCell Line, TumorEpithelial CellsFemaleHumansMaleMammary Glands, AnimalMiceMice, NudeRegenerationTesticular Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID20647316
PMCPMC3494489

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.