Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26007182›Full record

ArticleMolecules (Basel, Switzerland)2015

Caffeic Acid phenethyl ester and ethanol extract of propolis induce the complementary cytotoxic effect on triple-negative breast cancer cell lines.

Anna Rzepecka-Stojko, Agata Kabała-Dzik, Aleksandra Moździerz, Robert Kubina, Robert D Wojtyczka, Rafał Stojko, Arkadiusz Dziedzic, Żaneta Jastrzębska-Stojko, Magdalena Jurzak, Ewa Buszman and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecules (Basel, Switzerland), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
9.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 68 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Screening a Prognosis-Related Target Gene in Patients with HER-2-Positive Breast Cancer by Bioinformatics Analysis.Medical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre · 2021
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  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

11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Anna Rzepecka-StojkoDepartment of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, School of Pharmacy with the Division of Laboratory Medicine in Sosnowiec, Medical University of Silesia in Katowice, Jagiellońska 4, 41-200 Sosnowiec, Poland. annastojko@sum.edu.pl.
Agata Kabała-DzikDepartment of Pathology, School of Pharmacy with the Division of Laboratory Medicine in Sosnowiec, Medical University of Silesia in Katowice, Ostrogórska 30, 41-200 Sosnowiec, Poland. adzik@sum.edu.pl.
Aleksandra MoździerzDepartment of Hygiene, Bioanalysis and Environmental Studies, School of Pharmacy with the Division of Laboratory Medicine in Sosnowiec, Medical University of Silesia in Katowice, Ostrogórska 30, 41-200 Sosnowiec, Poland. amozdzierz@sum.edu.pl.
Robert KubinaDepartment of Pathology, School of Pharmacy with the Division of Laboratory Medicine in Sosnowiec, Medical University of Silesia in Katowice, Ostrogórska 30, 41-200 Sosnowiec, Poland. rkubina@sum.edu.pl.
Robert D WojtyczkaDepartment and Institute of Microbiology and Virology, School of Pharmacy with the Division of Laboratory Medicine in Sosnowiec, Medical University of Silesia in Katowice, Jagiellońska 4, 41-200 Sosnowiec, Poland. rwojtyczka@sum.edu.pl.
Rafał StojkoDepartment of Women Health, School of Health Sciences, Medical University of Silesia in Katowice, Medyków 12, 40-752 Katowice, Poland. rstojko@sum.edu.pl.
Arkadiusz DziedzicDepartment of Conservative Dentistry with Endodontics, School of Medicine with the Division of Dentistry in Zabrze, Medical University of Silesia in Katowice, Pl. Akademicki 17, 41-902 Bytom, Poland. adziedzic@sum.edu.pl.
Żaneta Jastrzębska-StojkoDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, School of Medicine, Medical University of Silesia in Katowice, Medyków 14, 40-752 Katowice, Poland. zak@czkstojko.pl.
Magdalena JurzakDepartment of Cosmetology, School of Pharmacy with the Division of Laboratory Medicine in Sosnowiec, Medical University of Silesia in Katowice, Kasztanowa 3, 41-200 Sosnowiec, Poland. magda@sum.edu.pl.
Ewa BuszmanDepartment of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, School of Pharmacy with the Division of Laboratory Medicine in Sosnowiec, Medical University of Silesia in Katowice, Jagiellońska 4, 41-200 Sosnowiec, Poland. ebuszman@sum.edu.pl.
Jerzy StojkoDepartment of Hygiene, Bioanalysis and Environmental Studies, School of Pharmacy with the Division of Laboratory Medicine in Sosnowiec, Medical University of Silesia in Katowice, Ostrogórska 30, 41-200 Sosnowiec, Poland. jstojko@sum.edu.pl.
Medical University of Silesia · PL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Chemotherapy of breast cancer could be improved by bioactive natural substances, which may potentially sensitize the carcinoma cells' susceptibility to drugs. Numerous phytochemicals, including propolis, have been reported to interfere with the viability of carcinoma cells. We evaluated the in vitro cytotoxic activity of ethanol extract of propolis (EEP) and its derivative caffeic acid phenethyl ester (CAPE) towards two triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) cell lines, MDA-MB-231 and Hs578T, by implementation of the MTT and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) assays. The morphological changes of breast carcinoma cells were observed following exposure to EEP and CAPE. The IC50 of EEP was 48.35 µg∙mL-1 for MDA-MB-23 cells and 33.68 µg∙mL-1 for Hs578T cells, whereas the CAPE IC50 was 14.08 µM and 8.01 µM for the MDA-MB-231 and Hs578T cell line, respectively. Here, we report that propolis and CAPE inhibited the growth of the MDA-MB-231 and Hs578T lines in a dose-dependent and exposure time-dependent manner. EEP showed less cytotoxic activity against both types of TNBC cells. EEP and, particularly, CAPE may markedly affect the viability of breast cancer cells, suggesting the potential role of bioactive compounds in chemoprevention/chemotherapy by potentiating the action of standard anti-cancer drugs.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic AgentsAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsApoptosisCaffeic AcidsCell Line, TumorFemaleHumansPhenylethyl AlcoholPhytotherapyPropolisTriple Negative Breast NeoplasmsAntineoplastic Agentscaffeic acid phenethyl esterCaffeic AcidsPhenylethyl AlcoholPropolisbreast cancercaffeic acid phenethyl estercytotoxicitypropolis

Identifiers

PMID26007182
PMCPMC6272161
OpenAlexW1509029337

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.