Cited by 43Cancer Cells and MetastasisBreast Cancer Treatment StudiesCellular Mechanics and Interactions

Gene Expression Analysis of In Vitro Cocultures to Study Interactions between Breast Epithelium and Stroma

Open access
Casbas-Hernandez, Patricia, Fleming, Jodie M., Troester, Melissa A.·2011·BioMed Research International

Abstract

The interactions between breast epithelium and stroma are fundamental to normal tissue homeostasis and for tumor initiation and progression. Gene expression studies of in vitro coculture models demonstrate that in vitro models have relevance for tumor progression in vivo. For example, stromal gene expression has been shown to vary in association with tumor subtype in vivo, and analogous in vitro cocultures recapitulate subtype‐specific biological interactions. Cocultures can be used to study cancer cell interactions with specific stromal components (e.g., immune cells, fibroblasts, endothelium) and different representative cell lines (e.g., cancer‐associated versus normal‐associated fibroblasts versus established, immortalized fibroblasts) can help elucidate the role of stromal variation in tumor phenotypes. Gene expression data can also be combined with cell‐based assays to identify cellular phenotypes associated with gene expression changes. Coculture systems are manipulable systems that can yield important insights about cell‐cell interactions and the cellular phenotypes that occur as tumor and stroma co‐evolve.

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 · 10.1155/2011/520987

Cites

72 of 72 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In indirect co-culture, signaling pathways between different cell types such as cancer cells and fibroblasts can be better studied.

    “In the latter, signaling pathways between the different types of cells such as cancer cells and fibroblasts can be better studied [51].”

    From Microfluidic modelling of the tumor microenvironment for anti-cancer drug development (2019) · cites this paper as [51]

    Section 2.1 describes indirect transwell cocultures used to examine gene-expression responses between breast cancer cells and fibroblasts, including changes in a signaling pathway. It does not establish that signaling pathways are generally better studied in indirect than in direct coculture; it notes that direct contact can produce distinct profiles, although separating the cells requires additional steps. Page numbers were not provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 73 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [56]Young B Lowe JS Stevens A Heath J Wheather’s functional Histology. A Text and Colour Atlas 2006 5th edition Churchill livingstone, Pa, USA Elsevier

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Casbas-Hernandez, P., Fleming, J. M., & Troester, M. A.
Affiliations
  • North Carolina Central University (US)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Corresponding author
Troester, Melissa A.
Venue
BioMed Research International
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-01
Volume
2011
Issue
1
Pages
520987-520987
ISSN
  • 1110-7243 (ISSN-L)
  • 2314-6133
  • 2314-6141
OpenAlex
W2106443904
Cited by
43
References
73
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 2
FWCI
0.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BioMed Research International (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • UNC Libraries
Funders
  • National Cancer Institute (1R01CA138255-03, 5P50CA058233, 5P30ES10126-11)
  • UNC Breast SPORE (1R01CA138255-03, 5P50CA058233, 5P30ES10126-11)
  • UNC Center for Environmental Health and Susceptibility (1R01CA138255-03, 5P50CA058233, 5P30ES10126-11)
  • HHMI Translational Research Grant (1R01CA138255-03, 5P50CA058233, 5P30ES10126-11)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer Cells and Metastasis
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Breast Cancer Treatment Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cell Biology › Cellular Mechanics and Interactions
Keywords
gene expression, tumor progression, cancer-associated fibroblasts, tumor microenvironment, breast cancer subtypes, tumor-immune cell interactions, tumor phenotype
MeSH terms
Breast, Breast Neoplasms, Cell Communication, Endothelium, Epithelial Cells, Epithelium, Female, Fibroblasts, Humans, Phenotype, Gene Expression Regulation, Neoplastic, Stromal Cells, Coculture Techniques, Cell Culture Techniques, Gene Expression Profiling, Models, Animal, Tumor Microenvironment

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