Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37455418›Full record

ArticleCancer biology & therapy2023

Comparison of tumor growth assessment using GFP fluorescence and DiI labeling in a zebrafish xenograft model.

Yaal Dryer, Joos Berghausen, Karen Creswell, Eric Glasgow, Tinatin I Brelidze

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 28% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Yaal DryerDepartment of Pharmacology and Physiology, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA.
Joos BerghausenDepartment of Pharmacology and Physiology, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA.
Karen CreswellDepartment of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA.
Eric GlasgowDepartment of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA.
Tinatin I BrelidzeDepartment of Pharmacology and Physiology, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3046-8184
Georgetown University · US

Funding

Tissue Culture Shared ResourceP30CA051008 · NCI · GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY · PI MARCUS S NOEL · 1990 to 2026
$71.5M
Functional mechanisms and therapeutic potential of EAG channel regulatorsR01CA252969 · NCI · GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY · PI BRELIDZE, TINATIN I · 2021 to 2025
$2.7M
Pharmacological Sciences Training Program (PSTP)T32GM142520 · NIGMS · GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY · PI Patrick Alexander Forcelli, Anton Wellstein · 2022 to 2026
$1.3M
LSR-Fortessa upgrade for Shared ResourceS10OD016213 · OD · GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY · PI CRESWELL, KAREN A · 2013 to 2013
$298k
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA051008NCI NIH HHS R01 CA252969NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM142520NIH HHS S10 OD016213
6 · The paper itself

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

NeoplasmsZebrafishAnimalsFluorescenceFluorescent DyesGreen Fluorescent ProteinsHeterograftsHumansFluorescent DyesGreen Fluorescent ProteinsBreast cancerDiIGFP, lipophilic dyeMDA-MB-231, xenograftzebrafish

Identifiers

PMID37455418
PMCPMC10353338
OpenAlexW4384493301

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.