ArticleIn vitro cellular & developmental biology. Animal1998
Reconstituted human oral and esophageal mucosa in culture.
Article in In vitro cellular & developmental biology. Animal, 1998. 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, 44 citations in OpenAlex.
- Isolation and characterization of mouse and human esophageal epithelial cells in 3D organotypic culture.Nature protocols · 2012Article
- Esophagus tissue engineering: hybrid approach with esophageal epithelium and unidirectional smooth muscle tissue component generation in vitro.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2009Article
- Temporal expression of the Candida albicans genes CHK1 and CSSK1, adherence, and morphogenesis in a model of reconstituted human esophageal epithelial candidiasis.Infection and immunity · 2002Article
- Clinical puzzle: Barrett's oesophagus.Disease models & mechanismsArticle
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 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We have successfully established monolayer and organotypic culture techniques for growing human oral and esophageal epithelial cells. Cells in monolayer culture were grown in serum-free medium, modified from techniques previously reported by our group. The organotypic cultures were grown in a defined medium supplemented with 10% fetal calf serum. Oral and esophageal cells were maintained in keratinocyte basal medium with pituitary extract and other supplements, and 0.05 mM calcium for 7-9 and 9-11 passages, respectively. Both cell types had similar morphology by phase contrast microscopy. When confluent, the cells were predominantly small, basaloid, and uniform and interspersed with larger, differentiated cells. By immunohistochemistry, both cell types in monolayer were positive to AE1, AE3, and 34BE12 antibodies to keratins of stratified epithelia. Oral epithelial cells in monolayer also were positive to 35BH11, representative of simple epithelial keratins, while esophageal cells were not. The esophageal cells were focally positive to K13, while the oral cells were negative. Both were negative for K19. When comparing monolayer to organotypic cultures and to in vivo specimens, there was a significant difference in the expression of keratins. Using organotypic cultures, AE1, AE3, and 34BE12 were strongly positive in both oral and esophageal cells, similar to in vivo tissues. In contrast to monolayers, both were also focally positive for K19. Esophageal cells were strongly positive for K13, while the oral cells were mildly but uniformly positive. Both were negative for keratins of simple epithelia. These two cell culture techniques offer unique opportunities to study the pathobiology, including carcinogenesis, of stable cell systems from the oral and esophageal epithelia.
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.