ArticleJournal of pharmaceutical analysis2021
One extraction tool for
Article in Journal of pharmaceutical analysis, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Complex Distribution Phenomena and Plastic Binding of Test Chemicals in Cell Culture Experiments: Exemplification by Tebufenpyrad.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Culture Dimensionality Modulates Gallium Maltolate Response in Glioblastoma: Comparative Analyses in 2D and 3D Models.Molecular pharmaceutics · 2026Article
- Biocompatibility of Hydraulic Calcium Silicate-Based Cement MTA FlowJournal of functional biomaterials · 2025Article
- Solid-phase microextraction: a fit-for-purpose technique in biomedical analysis.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2022Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Solid phase microextraction (SPME) in combination with high-resolution mass spectrometry was employed for the determination of metabolomic profile of mouse melanoma growth within in vitro 2D, in vitro 3D, and in vivo models. Such multi-model approach had never been investigated before. Due to the low-invasiveness of SPME, it was possible to perform time-course analysis, which allowed building time profile of biochemical reactions in the studied material. Such approach does not require the multiplication of samples as subsequent analyses are performed from the very same cell culture or from the same individual. SPME already reduces the number of animals required for experiment; therefore, it is with good concordance with the 3Rs rule (replacement, reduction, and refinement). Among tested models, the largest number of compounds was found within the in vitro 2D cell culture model, while in vivo and in vitro 3D models had the lowest number of detected compounds. These results may be connected with a higher metabolic rate, as well as lower integrity of the in vitro 2D model compared to the in vitro 3D model resulting in a lower number of compounds released into medium in the latter model. In terms of in vitro-in vivo extrapolation, the in vitro 2D model performed more similar to in vivo model compared to in vitro 3D model; however, it might have been due to the fact that only compounds secreted to medium were investigated. Thus, in further experiments to obtain full metabolome information, the intraspheroidal assessment or spheroid dissociation would be necessary.
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.