ArticleEndocrine-related cancer2016
Primary cancer cell culture: mammary-optimized vs conditional reprogramming.
Article in Endocrine-related cancer, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
19 citing papers in PubMed.
- Conditionally Reprogrammed Cells Preserve Cellular Diversity and Permit Genetic Manipulation: Implications for Cancer Heterogeneity and Tissue Regeneration.Serican journal of medicine · 2026Article
- Review
- Development of Patient-Derived Conditionally Reprogrammed 3D Breast Cancer Culture Models for Drug Sensitivity Evaluation.Oncology research · 2025Article
- Modeling respiratory tract diseases for clinical translation employing conditionally reprogrammed cells.Cell insight · 2024Review
- Review
- Unlocking Translational Potential: Conditionally Reprogrammed Cells in Advancing Breast Cancer Research.Cells · 2023Review
- Application and Progress of Cultured Models of Gallbladder Carcinoma.Journal of clinical and translational hepatology · 2023Review
- Review
- Review
- Characterization of transcriptome diversity and in vitro behavior of primary human high-risk breast cells.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Conditional Cell Reprogramming in Modeling Digestive System Diseases.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2021Review
- Conditional cell reprogramming for modeling host-virus interactions and human viral diseases.Journal of medical virology · 2020Review
- Conditionally Reprogrammed Human Normal Airway Epithelial Cells at ALI: A Physiological Model for Emerging Viruses.Virologica Sinica · 2020Review
- Conditionally reprogrammed macaque endocervical cells retain steroid receptor expression and produce mucus.Biology of reproduction · 2020Article
- Conditional Reprogramming for Patient-Derived Cancer Models and Next-Generation Living Biobanks.Cells · 2019Review
- Proliferation of human hepatocellular carcinoma cells from surgically resected specimens under conditionally reprogrammed culture.Molecular medicine reports · 2019Article
- Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma and BRCA1.Endocrine-related cancer · 2019Review
- Expanding primary cells from mucoepidermoid and other salivary gland neoplasms for genetic and chemosensitivity testing.Disease models & mechanisms · 2018Article
- Responsiveness ofCancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The impact of different culture conditions on biology of primary cancer cells is not always addressed. Here, conditional reprogramming (CRC) was compared with mammary-optimized EpiCult-B (EpiC) for primary mammary epithelial cell isolation and propagation, allograft generation, and genome-wide transcriptional consequences using cancer and non-cancer mammary tissue from mice with different dosages of Brca1 and p53 Selective comparison to DMEM was included. Primary cultures were established with all three media, but CRC was most efficient for initial isolation (P<0.05). Allograft development was faster using cells grown in EpiC compared with CRC (P<0.05). Transcriptome comparison of paired CRC and EpiC cultures revealed 1700 differentially expressed genes by passage 20. CRC promoted Trp53 gene family upregulation and increased expression of epithelial differentiation genes, whereas EpiC elevated expression of epithelial-mesenchymal transition genes. Differences did not persist in allografts where both methods yielded allografts with relatively similar transcriptomes. Restricting passage (<7) reduced numbers of differentially expressed genes below 50. In conclusion, CRC was most efficient for initial cell isolation but EpiC was quicker for allograft generation. The extensive culture-specific gene expression patterns that emerged with longer passage could be limited by reducing passage number when both culture transcriptomes were equally similar to that of the primary tissue. Defining impact of culture condition and passage on the transcriptome of primary cells could assist experimental design and interpretation. For example, differences that appear with passage and culture condition are potentially exploitable for comparative studies targeting specific biological networks in different transcriptional environments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.