2019
DOI: 10.1007/s10517-019-04475-3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Preparation and Testing of Cells Expressing Fluorescent Proteins for Intravital Imaging of Tumor Microenvironment

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…produced similar results; mouse EL-4 lymphoma cells expressing eGFP did not grow after subcutaneous injection to immunocompetent mice, unlike the parental cell line [13]. In another study, subcutaneous injection of GFP expressing 4T1 (murine breast cancer) and B16-F10 (murine melanoma) cells had no effect on the tumor growth rate, whereas CT26-GFP (murine colon cancer) cells were rejected after implantation [14]. When the results of our xenograft study were evaluated together with the aforementioned studies, it was clearly seen that the tumorigenic capacity of GFP-expressing cells varies regardless of the animal model or cell type used.…”
Section: Macroscopic and Microscopic Evaluation Of Xenograft Models R...mentioning
confidence: 72%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…produced similar results; mouse EL-4 lymphoma cells expressing eGFP did not grow after subcutaneous injection to immunocompetent mice, unlike the parental cell line [13]. In another study, subcutaneous injection of GFP expressing 4T1 (murine breast cancer) and B16-F10 (murine melanoma) cells had no effect on the tumor growth rate, whereas CT26-GFP (murine colon cancer) cells were rejected after implantation [14]. When the results of our xenograft study were evaluated together with the aforementioned studies, it was clearly seen that the tumorigenic capacity of GFP-expressing cells varies regardless of the animal model or cell type used.…”
Section: Macroscopic and Microscopic Evaluation Of Xenograft Models R...mentioning
confidence: 72%
“…Comparison of different mouse tumor cell lines expressing uorescent proteins resulted in varying tumorigenic capacity. Subcutaneous injection of GFP expressing 4T1 and B16-F10 cells had no effect on the tumor growth rate, while both CT26-GFP and CT26-RFP cells were rejected after implantation [14].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…It is well-known that xenogeneic proteins expression can affect cell growth rate and their tumorigenic potential by suppression of the tumor growth via immune mechanisms [ 16 ]. For a comparative assessment of the growth dynamics of tumors obtained from 4T1 and 4T1-Qt cells, tumor volumes were measured on different days after subcutaneous tumor cells implantation.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…4T1 (mouse breast cancer cells) were purchased from the American Type Culture CollectionF (ATCC, Manassas, VA, USA). A GFP-expressing tumor cell line was obtained via lentivirus transduction and had previously been characterized for its in vitro and in vivo growth kinetics [55]. The cells were cultured in RPMI-1640 medium (gibco, New York, NY, USA) with 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS, gibco) and 2 mM L-glutamine (gibco).…”
Section: Animals and Tumor Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%