Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36504339›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Egyptian National Cancer Institute2022

Comparison of mammosphere formation from stem-like cells of normal breast, malignant primary breast tumors, and MCF-7 cell line.

Jenifer Mallavarpu Ambrose, Vishnu Priya Veeraraghavan, Rosy Vennila, Secunda Rupert, Jeswanth Sathyanesan, Rajasundari Meenakshisundaram, Sakthivel Selvaraj, Sarubala Malayaperumal, Malathi Kullappan, Sudarsanam Dorairaj and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Egyptian National Cancer Institute, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

13 authors.

Jenifer Mallavarpu AmbroseDepartment of Research, Panimalar Medical College Hospital & Research Institute, Varadharajapuram, Poonamallee, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, 600 123, India.
Vishnu Priya VeeraraghavanDepartment of Biochemistry, Saveetha Dental College, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences (SIMATS), Saveetha University, Velappanchavadi, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, 600 077, India.
Rosy VennilaStem Cell Research Centre, Government Stanley Medical College & Hospital, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, 600 001, India.
Secunda RupertStem Cell Research Centre, Government Stanley Medical College & Hospital, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, 600 001, India.
Jeswanth SathyanesanStem Cell Research Centre, Government Stanley Medical College & Hospital, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, 600 001, India.
Rajasundari MeenakshisundaramStem Cell Research Centre, Government Stanley Medical College & Hospital, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, 600 001, India.
Sakthivel SelvarajStem Cell Research Centre, Government Stanley Medical College & Hospital, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, 600 001, India.
Sarubala MalayaperumalStem Cell Research Centre, Government Stanley Medical College & Hospital, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, 600 001, India.
Malathi KullappanDepartment of Research, Panimalar Medical College Hospital & Research Institute, Varadharajapuram, Poonamallee, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, 600 123, India.
Sudarsanam DorairajPG Research Department of Advanced Zoology and Biotechnology, Loyola College, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, 600 034, India.
Jayesh R GujarathiDepartment of Chemistry, School of Chemical Sciences, KES's Pratap College, Amalner, Maharashtra, 425 401, India.
Sri Harshini GandhamaneniDepartment of General Medicine, Panimalar Medical College Hospital & Research Institute, Varadharajapuram, Poonamallee, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, 600 123, India.
Krishna Mohan SurapaneniDepartments of Biochemistry, Molecular Virology, Research, Clinical Skills & Simulation, Panimalar Medical College Hospital & Research Institute, Varadharajapuram, Poonamallee, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, 600 123, India. krishnamohan.surapaneni@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5204-5708

Funding

University Grants Commission F1-17.1/2013-14/MANF-2013-14-CHR-TAM-25064
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMammosphere formation assay has become a versatile tool to quantify the activity of putative breast cancer stem cells in non-adherent in vitro cultures. However, optimizing the suspension culture system is crucial to establish mammosphere cultures from primary breast tumors.

methodsThis study aimed at determining the self-renewal and sphere-forming potential of breast cancer stem-like cells derived from human primary invasive ductal carcinoma and normal breast tissue samples, and MCF-7 breast cancer cell line using an optimal suspension culture system. Mammosphere-forming efficiency of the mammospheres generated from the tissue samples and cell line were compared. We evaluated the expression of CD44

resultsBreast epithelial cells isolated from the three samples formed two-dimensional spheroids in suspension cultures. Interestingly, mammospheres formed from patient-derived primary breast tumors were enriched in breast cancer stem-like cells with the phenotype CD44

conclusionsThus, the use of primary tumor specimens and breast cancer cell lines as suitable models for elucidating the breast cancer stem cell activity was validated using mammosphere culture system.

Indexed as

BreastBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMCF-7 CellsNeoplastic Stem CellsBreast cancer stem cellsBreast cancer stem-like cellsMammosphere assayMammosphere formationMammosphere-forming efficiency

Identifiers

PMID36504339
PMCPMC13314247

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.