ArticleOncology reports2017
Improved xenograft efficiency of esophageal adenocarcinoma cell lines through in vivo selection.
Article in Oncology reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Spontaneous and Induced Animal Models for Cancer Research.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Genetic and pharmacological inhibition of eIF4E effectively targets esophageal cancer cells and augments 5-FU's efficacy.Journal of thoracic disease · 2018Article
- Hypoxia imaging withRadiation oncology (London, England) · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present study aimed to investigate the orthotopic growth potential of two generally available esophageal adenocarcinoma cell lines, OE33 and OACM5 1.C, and a third in vivo selected subpopulation, OACM5 1.C SC1. One group of mice was subcutaneously injected in the hind legs. Tumor growth was measured with calipers. Another group was injected orthotopically in the distal esophageal wall through median laparotomy. Tumor development was evaluated macroscopically and confirmed microscopically. A subset of mice was evaluated with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to follow tumor progression. Additionally, functional cell line characteristics were evaluated in vitro (clonogenic, collagen invasion and sphere formation assays, and protein analysis of cell-cell adhesion and cytoskeletal proteins) to better understand xenograft behavior. OE33 cells were shown to be epithelial‑like, whereas OACM5 1.C and OACM5 1.C SC1 were more mesenchymal-like. The three cell lines were non‑invasive into native type I collagen gels. In vivo, OE33 cells led to 63.6 and 100% tumor nodules after orthotopic (n=12) and subcutaneous (n=8) injection, respectively. Adversely, OACM5 1.C cells did not lead to tumor formation after orthotopic injection (n=6) and only 50% of subcutaneous injections led to tumor nodules (n=8). However, the newly established cell line OACM5 1.C SC1 resulted in 33% tumor formation when orthotopically injected (n=6) and in 100% tumors when injected subcutaneously (n=8). The higher xenograft rate of OACM5 1.C SC1 (P<0.05) corresponded with a higher clonogenic potential compared to its parental cell line (P<0.0001). All models showed local tumor growth without metastasis formation. In conclusion, OACM5 1.C has a poor tumor take rate at an orthotopic and ectopic site. A subpopulation obtained through in vivo selection, OACM5 1.C SC1, gives a significant higher take rate, ectopically. Furthermore, OE33 establishes orthotopic (and subcutaneous) xenografts in mice. These models can be of interest for future studies, and their slow growth rates are a challenge for therapeutic intervention.
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.