Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 264

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Macrophage infiltration and its prognostic relevance in clear cell renal cell carcinoma

Komohara, Yoshihiro, Hasita, Horlad, Ohnishi, Koji, Fujiwara, Yukio, Suzu, Shinya, Eto, Masatoshi, Takeya, Motohiro·2011·Cancer Science

Abstract

Most malignant tumors evidence infiltration of many macrophages. In this study, we investigated an anti‐inflammatory macrophage phenotype (M2) in clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) using CD163 and CD204 as markers. Immunostaining showed a correlation between the number of CD163+ cells and age, sex, nuclear grade, and TNM classification. High infiltration of CD163+ cells was significantly associated with poor clinical prognosis in univariate analysis but not in multivariate analysis. We also carried out in vitro studies to examine cell–cell interactions between macrophages and cancer cells. Culture supernatants from RCC cell lines induced polarization of macrophages toward the M2 phenotype. Coculture of macrophages with cancer cells significantly induced activation of signal transducers and activators of transcription‐3 (Stat3) in the cancer cells. Direct coculture of RCC cells with macrophages led to stronger activation of Stat3 in the cancer cells than did indirect coculture using Transwell chamber dishes. Because RCC cells expressed membrane‐type macrophage colony‐stimulating factor (mM‐CSF) on the cell surface, we suggested that this mM‐CSF plays an important role in direct cell–cell interactions. Stat3 activation in cancer cells that was induced by coculture with macrophages was suppressed by downregulation of the M‐CSF receptor (M‐CSFR) in macrophages and by an inhibitor of M‐CSFR. In conclusion, investigation of CD163+ tumor‐associated macrophages would be useful for assessment of the clinical prognosis of patients with ccRCC. Cell–cell interactions mediated by mM‐CSF and M‐CSFR binding could contribute to cancer cell activation. (Cancer Sci 2011; 102: 1424–1431)

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1349-7006.2011.01945.x

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cites

Show all 8 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Komohara, Y., Hasita, H., Ohnishi, K., Fujiwara, Y., Suzu, S., Eto, M., & Takeya, M.
Venue
Cancer Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-05-09
Volume
102
Issue
7
Pages
1424-1431
ISSN
  • 1347-9032 (ISSN-L)
  • 1349-7006
OpenAlex
W1968594028
Cited by
264
References
8
FWCI
5.52
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

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.