ArticleClinical and experimental hepatology2022
Comparison of growth features and cancer stem cell prevalence in intrahepatic and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma cell lines.
Article in Clinical and experimental hepatology, 2022. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Disruption of thrombospondin 1/2-integrin β1 axis impairs cell adhesion and tumor growth in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.Cell death discovery · 2026Article
- Applications of 3D models in cholangiocarcinoma.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
- Is 26S proteasome non-ATPase regulatory subunit 6 a potential molecular target for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma?World journal of hepatology · 2024Article
- An overview of extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: from here to where?Frontiers in oncology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim of the study: Intra- and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (I-CCA and E-CCA respectively) exhibit different growth features that contribute to different clinical outcomes. Cancer stem cells (CSCs) influence tumor growth and thereby may be responsible for these differences. The aim of this study was to document and compare the growth features of human I-CCA and E-CCA cell lines and determine whether any differences observed could be explained by differences in the prevalence and/or stem cell surface marker (SCSM) expression profiles of CSCs within the tumor cell lines. Material and methods: Six CCA cells lines, three I-CCA and three E-CCA, were studied. Tumor cell growth features including cell proliferation, colony/spheroid formation, migration and invasion were documented. CSC prevalence and SCSM expression profiles were examined by flow cytometry. Results: I-CCA cells had significantly increased proliferative activity, shorter doubling times and were more invasive than E-CCA cells, while colony/spheroid formation and migration were similar in the two cell populations. There were no significant differences in CSC prevalence rates or SCSM expression profiles. Conclusions: These findings suggest that I-CCA cells proliferate at a more rapid rate and are more invasive than E-CCA cells but the differences cannot be explained by differences in the prevalence or SCSM expression profiles of CSCs within the tumor cell population.
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.