ArticleScientific reports2025
Comprehensive DNA profiling strategy for patient-derived xenograft model authentication in the J-PDX library.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Patient-derived xenograft models are crucial in cancer research, although authentication methods remain limited. This study developed a comprehensive DNA profiling strategy for patient-derived xenograft quality control in the J-PDX Library by comparing short tandem repeat and single nucleotide polymorphism analyses. Overall, 325 patient-derived xenograft models were analyzed using both short tandem repeat and single nucleotide polymorphism profiling. Concordance rates between patient-derived samples and patient-derived xenograft models were assessed. Single nucleotide polymorphism-based analysis cutoffs classified models as matched, undeterminable, or unmatched. Additionally, the impact of microsatellite instability and loss of heterozygosity on concordance were evaluated. Short tandem repeat analysis showed greater variability than single nucleotide polymorphism analysis. Among the 325 models, 296 (91.1%) were matched, 24 (7.4%) were undeterminable, and five (1.5%) were unmatched. Notably, undeterminable models showed significantly higher microsatellite instability, with single nucleotide polymorphism analysis providing reliable authentication, even when short tandem repeat analysis failed. This study established an efficient patient-derived xenograft model quality control workflow using short tandem repeat analysis for primary screening and confirmatory single nucleotide polymorphism analysis for challenging cases, particularly microsatellite instability tumors. This workflow enables robust quality control of the J-PDX Library, enhancing its reliability for drug development and preclinical research.
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.