ArticleCancer biology & therapy2023
Comparison of tumor growth assessment using GFP fluorescence and DiI labeling in a zebrafish xenograft model.
Article in Cancer biology & therapy, 2023. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Amitriptyline inhibits EAG1 channels by binding to their PAS domains and exerts EAG1-dependent anti-tumorigenic effects.Cancer gene therapy · 2026Article
- Repurposing tricyclic drugs as cancer therapeutics: comparative analysis of antitumorigenic effects of chlorpromazine, amitriptyline and imipramine.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Astragalin Attenuates Bone Destruction and the Progression of Bone Metastasis in Breast Cancer.Cancers · 2025Article
- Novel Isolongifolenone-Based Caprolactam Derivatives as Potential Anticancer Agents via the p53/mTOR/Autophagy Pathway.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
DiI is a lipophilic fluorescent dye frequently used to label and trace cells in cell cultures and xenograft models. However, DiI can also transfer from labeled to unlabeled cells, including host organism cells, and label dead cells obscuring interpretation of the results. These limitations of DiI labeling in xenograft models have not been thoroughly investigated. Here we labeled green fluorescent protein (GFP)-expressing MDA-MB-231 cells with DiI to directly compare tumor growth assessment in zebrafish xenografts using the DiI labeling and GFP fluorescence. Our results indicate that the DiI based assessment significantly overestimated tumor growth in zebrafish xenograft models compared to the GFP fluorescence based assessment. The imaging of DiI labeled GFP-expressing MDA-MB-231 cell cultures indicated that the DiI labeling of the membrane is uneven. Analysis of the DiI labeled GFP-expressing MDA-MB-231 cell cultures with flow cytometry indicated that the DiI labeling varied over time while the GFP fluorescence remained unchanged, suggesting that the GFP fluorescence is a more reliable signal for monitoring tumor progression than the DiI labeling. Taken together, our results demonstrate limitations of using DiI labeling for xenograft models and emphasize the need for validating the results based on DiI labeling with other orthogonal methods, such as the ones utilizing genetically encoded fluorophores.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.