Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25375271›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of cancer2014

Interrogation of gossypol therapy in glioblastoma implementing cell line and patient-derived tumour models.

M A Jarzabek, V Amberger-Murphy, J J Callanan, C Gao, A M Zagozdzon, L Shiels, J Wang, K L Ligon, B E Rich, P Dicker and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of cancer, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Regulation of autophagy as a therapeutic option in glioblastoma.Apoptosis : an international journal on programmed cell death · 2021
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Autophagy as a Potential Therapy for Malignant Glioma.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

13 authors.

M A JarzabekDepartment of Physiology and Medical Physics and Centre for Systems Medicine, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin 2, Ireland.
V Amberger-Murphy1] Molecular Therapeutics for Cancer Ireland, Dublin City University, Dublin 9, Ireland [2] All Ireland Cooperative Oncology Research Group, Dublin 2, Ireland.
J J Callanan1] UCD School of Veterinary Medicine, University College Dublin, Dublin 4, Ireland [2] Ross School of Veterinary Medicine, Basseterre, St Kitts, West Indies.
C GaoDepartment of Biological Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA.
A M ZagozdzonUCD School of Biomolecular and Biomedical Science, UCD Conway Institute, University College Dublin, Dublin 4, Ireland.
L ShielsDepartment of Physiology and Medical Physics and Centre for Systems Medicine, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin 2, Ireland.
J WangDepartment of Biomedicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
K L LigonDepartment of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
B E RichDepartment of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
P DickerPHS Department of Epidemiology and Public Health Medicine, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin 2, Ireland.
W M GallagherUCD School of Biomolecular and Biomedical Science, UCD Conway Institute, University College Dublin, Dublin 4, Ireland.
J H M PrehnDepartment of Physiology and Medical Physics and Centre for Systems Medicine, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin 2, Ireland.
A T Byrne1] Department of Physiology and Medical Physics and Centre for Systems Medicine, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin 2, Ireland [2] UCD School of Biomolecular and Biomedical Science, UCD Conway Institute, University College Dublin, Dublin 4, Ireland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGlioblastoma (GBM), being a highly vascularised and locally invasive tumour, is an attractive target for anti-angiogenic and anti-invasive therapies. The GBM/endothelial cell response to gossypol/temozolomide (TMZ) treatment was investigated with a particular aim to assess treatment effects on cancer hallmarks.

methodsCell viability, endothelial tube formation and GBM tumour cell invasion were variously assessed following combined treatment in vitro. The U87MG-luc2 subcutaneous xenograft model was used to investigate therapeutic response in vivo. Viable tumour response to treatment was interrogated using immunohistochemistry. Combined treatment protocols were also tested in primary GBM patient-derived cultures.

resultsAn endothelial/GBM cell viability inhibitory effect, as well as an anti-angiogenic and anti-invasive response, to combined treatment have been demonstrated in vitro. A significantly greater anti-proliferative (P=0.020, P=0.030), anti-angiogenic (P=0.040, P<0.0001) and pro-apoptotic (P=0.0083, P=0.0149) response was observed when combined treatment was compared with single gossypol/TMZ treatment response, respectively. GBM cell line and patient-specific response to gossypol/TMZ treatment was observed.

conclusionsOur results indicate that response to a combined gossypol/TMZ treatment is related to inhibition of tumour-associated angiogenesis, invasion and proliferation and warrants further investigation as a novel targeted GBM treatment strategy.

Indexed as

AnimalsBrain NeoplasmsCell Line, TumorFemaleGlioblastomaGossypolHumansMiceMice, Inbred BALB CXenograft Model Antitumor AssaysGossypol

Identifiers

PMID25375271
PMCPMC4264441

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.