Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26106586›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2015

Hedgehog Inhibitors in Rhabdomyosarcoma: A Comparison of Four Compounds and Responsiveness of Four Cell Lines.

Rosalie Ridzewski, Diana Rettberg, Kai Dittmann, Nicole Cuvelier, Simone Fulda, Heidi Hahn

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2015. 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
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Hedgehog Signaling Pathway and Autophagy in Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2018
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Different Response ofFrontiers in oncology · 2018
    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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Rosalie RidzewskiInstitute of Human Genetics, University Medical Center Goettingen , Goettingen , Germany.
Diana RettbergInstitute of Human Genetics, University Medical Center Goettingen , Goettingen , Germany.
Kai DittmannInstitute for Cellular and Molecular Immunology, University Medical Center Goettingen , Goettingen , Germany.
Nicole CuvelierInstitute of Human Genetics, University Medical Center Goettingen , Goettingen , Germany.
Simone FuldaInstitute for Experimental Cancer Research in Pediatrics, Goethe-University Frankfurt , Frankfurt , Germany.
Heidi HahnInstitute of Human Genetics, University Medical Center Goettingen , Goettingen , Germany.
Medical Genetics Center · DEGoethe University Frankfurt · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) is the most common soft tissue sarcoma in children and is divided into two major histological subgroups, i.e., embryonal (ERMS) and alveolar RMS (ARMS). RMS can show HEDGEHOG/SMOOTHENED (HH/SMO) signaling activity and several clinical trials using HH inhibitors for therapy of RMS have been launched. We here compared the antitumoral effects of the SMO inhibitors GDC-0449, LDE225, HhA, and cyclopamine in two ERMS (RD, RUCH-2) and two ARMS (RMS-13, Rh41) cell lines. Our data show that the antitumoral effects of these SMO inhibitors are highly divers and do not necessarily correlate with inhibition of HH signaling. In addition, the responsiveness of the RMS cell lines to the drugs is highly heterogeneous. Whereas some SMO inhibitors (i.e., LDE225 and HhA) induce strong proapoptotic and antiproliferative effects in some RMS cell lines, others paradoxically induce cellular proliferation at certain concentrations (e.g., 10 μM GDC-0449 or 5 μM cyclopamine in RUCH-2 and Rh41 cells) or can increase HH signaling activity as judged by GLI1 expression (i.e., LDE225, HhA, and cyclopamine). Similarly, some drugs (e.g., HhA) inhibit PI3K/AKT signaling or induce autophagy (e.g., LDE225) in some cell lines, whereas others cannot (e.g., GDC-0449). In addition, the effects of SMO inhibitors are concentration-dependent (e.g., 1 and 10 μM GDC-0449 decrease GLI1 expression in RD cells whereas 30 μM GDC-0449 does not). Together these data show that some SMO inhibitors can induce strong antitumoral effects in some, but not all, RMS cell lines. Due to the highly heterogeneous response, we propose to conduct thorough pretesting of SMO inhibitors in patient-derived short-term RMS cultures or patient-derived xenograft mouse models before applying these drugs to RMS patients.

Indexed as

cyclopamineGDC-0449HhALDE225rhabdomyosarcoma

Identifiers

PMID26106586
PMCPMC4459089
OpenAlexW1486709967

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.