ReviewGenes2017
Zebrafish Xenograft: An Evolutionary Experiment in Tumour Biology.
Review in Genes, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Intrinsic cellular heterogeneity directs divergent epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition outcomes.The FEBS journal · 2026Article
- Review
- Macrophage-Mediated Melanoma Reduction after HP-NAP Treatment in a Zebrafish Xenograft Model.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Article
- Cyclometalated Ru(II) β-carboline complexes induce cell cycle arrest and apoptosis in human HeLa cervical cancer cells via suppressing ERK and Akt signaling.Journal of biological inorganic chemistry : JBIC : a publication of the Society of Biological Inorganic Chemistry · 2021Article
- Article
- Innate immune evasion revealed in a colorectal zebrafish xenograft model.Nature communications · 2021Article
- Modeling neoplastic disease with spheroids and organoids.Journal of hematology & oncology · 2020Review
- Unveiling Tumor Microenvironment Interactions Using Zebrafish Models.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2020Review
- Exploiting Zebrafish Xenografts for Testing theFrontiers in microbiology · 2020Article
- Developing zebrafish disease models for in vivo small molecule screens.Current opinion in chemical biology · 2019Review
- Xenotransplantation of Human glioblastoma in Zebrafish larvae:Biology open · 2019Article
- The epitope-mediated MMP activation assay: detection and quantification of the activation of Mmp2 in vivo in the zebrafish embryo.Histochemistry and cell biology · 2018Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Though the cancer research community has used mouse xenografts for decades more than zebrafish xenografts, zebrafish have much to offer: they are cheap, easy to work with, and the embryonic model is relatively easy to use in high-throughput assays. Zebrafish can be imaged live, allowing us to observe cellular and molecular processes in vivo in real time. Opponents dismiss the zebrafish model due to the evolutionary distance between zebrafish and humans, as compared to mice, but proponents argue for the zebrafish xenograft's superiority to cell culture systems and its advantages in imaging. This review places the zebrafish xenograft in the context of current views on cancer and gives an overview of how several aspects of this evolutionary disease can be addressed in the zebrafish model. Zebrafish are missing homologs of some human proteins and (of particular interest) several members of the matrix metalloproteinase (MMP) family of proteases, which are known for their importance in tumour biology. This review draws attention to the implicit evolutionary experiment taking place when the molecular ecology of the xenograft host is significantly different than that of the donor.
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.