ReviewMini reviews in medicinal chemistry2025
Energy Metabolism Behavior and Response to Microenvironmental Factors of the Experimental Cancer Cell Models Differ from that of Actual Human Tumors.
Review in Mini reviews in medicinal chemistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Energy Metabolism Profiling of Human Colorectal Tumours.Journal of cellular and molecular medicine · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Analysis of the biochemical differences in the energy metabolism among bi-dimensional (2D) and tri-dimensional (3D) cultured cancer cell models and actual human tumors was undertaken. In 2D cancer cells, the oxidative phosphorylation (OxPhos) fluxes range is 2.5-19 nmol O2/min/mg cellular protein. Hypoxia drastically decreased OxPhos flux by 2-3 times in 2D models, similar to what occurs in mature multicellular tumor spheroids (MCTS), a representative 3D cancer cell model. However, mitochondrial protein contents and enzyme activities were significantly different between both models. Moreover, glycolytic fluxes were also significantly different between 2D and MCTS. The glycolytic flux range in 2D models is 1-34 nmol lactate/min/mg cellular protein, whereas in MCTS the range of glycolysis fluxes is 60-80 nmol lactate/min/mg cellular. In addition, sensitivity to anticancer canonical and metabolic drugs was greater in MCTS than in 2D. Actual solid human tumor samples show lower (1.6-4.5 times) OxPhos fluxes compared to normoxic 2D cancer cell cultures. These observations indicate that tridimensional organization provides a unique microenvironment affecting tumor physiology, which has not been so far faithfully reproduced by the 2D environment. Thus, the analysis of the resemblances and differences among cancer cell models undertaken in the present study raises caution on the interpretation of results derived from 2D cultured cancer cells when they are extended to clinical settings. It also raises awareness about detecting which biological and environmental factors are missing in 2D and 3D cancer cell models to be able to reproduce the actual human tumor behavior.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39411957What 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.