The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Contrasting in vivo and in vitro fates of glioblastoma cell subpopulations with amplified EGFR
Abstract
Despite the high incidence of EGFR amplification in patient glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) tissues, only a single GBM cell line, of the many described in the literature, is known to contain and maintain amplified EGFR. Because EGFR mutations in GBM manifest primarily, if not exclusively, in amplified form, it follows that the availability of cell lines with mutation of endogenous EGFR would also be in short supply. In fact, there are no GBM cell lines harboring the common EGFR mutants described in patient GBMs. These observations suggest that in vivo environments select for EGFR amplification, whereas in vitro environments, specifically cell cultures, select against this gene alteration. To contrast directly the fates of EGFR amplification in vivo and in vitro, as well as to examine potential relationships between EGFR amplification and mutation, we have established and maintained GBM explants as xenografts by serial passaging in nude mice. Analysis of EGFR copy number and EGFR mutation status in 11 patient tumors and their corresponding xenografts, as well as the monitoring of EGFR copy number during the establishment of a GBM cell line from a xenograft with amplified EGFR, indicated that selection for EGFR amplification is an in vivo phenomenon. Furthermore, our data indicated that EGFR mutation occurs only in tumors with EGFR amplification and showed that the selection of amplified mutant EGFR over amplified wild‐type EGFR as a xenograft occurred rapidly and completely during tumor propagation. © 2003 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Jacob, F., Salinas, R. D., Zhang, D. Y., Nguyen, P. T. T., Schnoll, J. G., Wong, S. Z. H., Thokala, R., Sheikh, S., Saxena, D., Prokop, S., et al. (2020) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2019.11.036 · Cited by 1,149
Silber, J., Lim, D. A., Petritsch, C., Persson, A. I., Maunakea, A. K., Yu, M., Vandenberg, S. R., Ginzinger, D. G., James, C. D., Costello, J. F., et al. (2008) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/1741-7015-6-14 · Cited by 957
Self-citationSzerlip, N. J., Pedraza, A., Chakravarty, D., Azim, M., McGuire, J., Fang, Y., Ozawa, T., Holland, E. C., Huse, J. T., Jhanwar, S., et al. (2012) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1114033109 · Cited by 538
Modeling Patient-Derived Glioblastoma with Cerebral Organoids
Linkous, A., Balamatsias, D., Snuderl, M., Edwards, L., Miyaguchi, K., Milner, T., Reich, B., Cohen-Gould, L., Storaska, A., Nakayama, Y., et al. (2019) · Cell Reports · doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2019.02.063 · Cited by 502
Guo, D., Reinitz, F., Youssef, M., Hong, C., Nathanson, D., Akhavan, D., Kuga, D., Amzajerdi, A. N., Soto, H., Zhu, S., et al. (2011) · Cancer Discovery · doi:10.1158/2159-8290.cd-11-0102 · Cited by 452
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Pandita, A., Aldape, K. D., Zadeh, G., Guha, A., & James, C. D.
- Venue
- Genes, Chromosomes and Cancer
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2003-10-17
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 29-36
- ISSN
- 1045-2257 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-2264
- OpenAlex
- W1975306522
- Cited by
- 211
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 2.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Contrasting in vivo and in vitro fates of glioblastoma cell subpopulations with amplified EGFR. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/gcc.10300
- The paper
- Pandita, A., Aldape, K. D., Zadeh, G., Guha, A., & James, C. D. (2004). Contrasting in vivo and in vitro fates of glioblastoma cell subpopulations with amplified EGFR. Genes, Chromosomes and Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1002/gcc.10300
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.