Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30048545›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Image and motor behavior for monitoring tumor growth in C6 glioma model.

Taylla Klei Felix Souza, Mariana Penteado Nucci, Javier Bustamante Mamani, Helio Rodrigues da Silva, Daianne Maciely Carvalho Fantacini, Lucas Eduardo Botelho de Souza, Virginia Picanço-Castro, Dimas Tadeu Covas, Edson Luis Vidoto, Alberto Tannús and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. BioMed research international · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
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.

Taylla Klei Felix SouzaHospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Mariana Penteado NucciLIM44, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Javier Bustamante MamaniHospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Helio Rodrigues da SilvaHospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Daianne Maciely Carvalho FantaciniFaculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.
Lucas Eduardo Botelho de SouzaFaculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.
Virginia Picanço-CastroFaculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.
Dimas Tadeu CovasFaculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.
Edson Luis VidotoCIERMag-Instituto de Física de São Carlos, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Alberto TannúsCIERMag-Instituto de Física de São Carlos, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Lionel Fernel GamarraHospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-3910-0047

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The primary objective of this study is to monitor tumor growth by using image techniques and behavioral testing through general and specific motor activities (spontaneous movements and gait). Our sample includes male Wistar rats, 2 months old and weighing 250-300 g, that is categorized into three groups: control, sham, and experimental. The experimental group was anesthetized; the C6 cells with luciferase expression that were suspended in a culture medium were implanted into the right frontoparietal cortex of the rats. The sham group received implant only with culture medium without cells. Images and behavioral tests were evaluated at base time and at 7, 14, 21, and 28 days after induced tumor growth analysis. The tumor volume measured by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and quantitative bioluminescence imaging (BLI) signal showed a correlation coefficient of r = 0.96. The MRI showed that the mean tumor volume increased by approximately 10, 26, and 49 times according to a comparison of tumor volume on the seventh day with 14, 21, and 28 days, respectively. The quantification of the BLI signal was (4.12 ± 2.01) x 10(8), (8.33 ± 3.12) x 10(8), (28.43 ± 6.32) x 10(8), and (63.02 ± 10.53) x 10(8) photons/s at the seventh, fourteenth, twenty-first, and twenty-eighth day, respectively. After 14 days of tumor induction, both behavioral tests showed significant differences between tumor and sham or control groups. Our study showed a high correlation between MRI and BLI for tumor growth monitoring with complement aspects analysis in tumor volume. In addition, functional behavioral analysis displayed sensitivity to monitor tumor growth, as well as to detect early significant changes between groups, primarily in the tumor group. The results of gait analysis were more sensitive than general motor analysis.

Indexed as

LocomotionAnimalsBrainBrain NeoplasmsCell Line, TumorGaitGait AnalysisGliomaLuminescent MeasurementsMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleRats, Wistar

Identifiers

PMID30048545
PMCPMC6062126

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.