ArticleBMC cancer2025
Assessing the selective impact of histone modifying drugs on adenoid cystic carcinoma cells and their stem cell counterparts.
Article in BMC cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC) is a rare, malignant neoplasm of the salivary glands that, despite its slow growth, exhibits aggressive behavior, including perineural invasion, high recurrence rates, and distant metastasis. The lack of effective systemic therapies, combined with the resistance of cancer stem cells (CSCs) to standard treatments, highlights the urgent need for novel therapeutic strategies.
methodsIn this study, we employed a high-throughput screening approach to evaluate a library of 157 histone modification drugs (HMDs) using the UM-HACC-2 A cell line. Two complementary in vitro models were used: traditional two-dimensional culture representing the bulk non‑CSC tumor population and three‑dimensional tumorspheres that enrich for CSCs. Automated liquid handling, high‑content imaging (ImageXpress), and image analysis (MetaXpress) enabled precise quantification of cell viability and tumorsphere characteristics following treatment with HMDs.
resultsScreening identified 14 candidate compounds that induced statistically significant cell death in non‑CSCs and 11 compounds that were effective against tumorspheres. Key epigenetic targets included histone deacetylases, histone methyltransferases, EZH2, c‑RET, and EGFR. Notably, ITF2357 (Givinostat) induced 84% cell death in non-CSC populations (p < 0.0001), while the histone methyltransferase inhibitors, UNC0631 and LLY-507, elicited cell death rates of 82.5% (p < 0.0001) and 82.3% (p < 0.0001), respectively. In the CSC model, GSK343, an EZH2 inhibitor, induced 35.2% cell death (p < 0.0001). Furthermore, combination assays, pairing HMD hits from CSC and non‑CSC screenings, revealed synergistic effects that significantly enhanced tumor cell death compared to monotherapy.
conclusionThese findings demonstrate that CSCs and non‑CSCs respond differently to epigenetic modulation, suggesting that personalized combination therapies targeting both subpopulations may be necessary to improve treatment outcomes for ACC. Although these targeted therapies are still in the early stages of investigation, our study provides a promising pre-clinical foundation for the development of effective, personalized therapeutic strategies for this challenging malignancy.
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.