ArticleAnimal models and experimental medicine2025
Single-cell transcriptomic sequencing identifies subcutaneous patient-derived xenograft recapitulated medulloblastoma.
Article in Animal models and experimental medicine, 2025. 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.
- Comparative single-cell transcriptomics of orthotopic and subcutaneous gastric tumors reveal immune and stromal heterogeneity.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Harnessing PDX and PDX 2.0: the next-generation paradigm for precision oncology and translational breakthroughs.Molecular cancer · 2026Review
- Advancing Medulloblastoma Treatment: Molecular Mechanisms, Drug Repurposing, and Precision Therapies.Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 2026Review
- Single-cell transcriptomic sequencing identifies subcutaneous patient-derived xenograft recapitulated medulloblastoma.Animal models and experimental medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMedulloblastoma (MB) is one of the most common malignant brain tumors that mainly affect children. Various approaches have been used to model MB to facilitate investigating tumorigenesis. This study aims to compare the recapitulation of MB between subcutaneous patient-derived xenograft (sPDX), intracranial patient-derived xenograft (iPDX), and genetically engineered mouse models (GEMM) at the single-cell level.
methodsWe obtained primary human sonic hedgehog (SHH) and group 3 (G3) MB samples from six patients. For each patient specimen, we developed two sPDX and iPDX models, respectively. Three Patch+/- GEMM models were also included for sequencing. Single-cell RNA sequencing was performed to compare gene expression profiles, cellular composition, and functional pathway enrichment. Bulk RNA-seq deconvolution was performed to compare cellular composition across models and human samples.
resultsOur results showed that the sPDX tumor model demonstrated the highest correlation to the overall transcriptomic profiles of primary human tumors at the single-cell level within the SHH and G3 subgroups, followed by the GEMM model and iPDX. The GEMM tumor model was able to recapitulate all subpopulations of tumor microenvironment (TME) cells that can be clustered in human SHH tumors, including a higher proportion of tumor-associated astrocytes and immune cells, and an additional cluster of vascular endothelia when compared to human SHH tumors.
conclusionsThis study was the first to compare experimental models for MB at the single-cell level, providing value insights into model selection for different research purposes. sPDX and iPDX are suitable for drug testing and personalized therapy screenings, whereas GEMM models are valuable for investigating the interaction between tumor and TME cells.
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.