Establishment in Severe Combined Immunodeficiency Mice of Subrenal Capsule Xenografts and Transplantable Tumor Lines from a Variety of Primary Human Lung Cancers: Potential Models for Studying Tumor Progression–Related Changes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Lung cancer is a biologically diverse disease and relevant models reflecting its diversity would facilitate the improvement of existing therapies. With a view to establishing such models, we developed and evaluated xenografts of a variety of human lung cancers. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Using nonobese diabetic/severe combined immunodeficiency mice, subrenal capsule xenografts were generated from primary lung cancer tissue, including moderately and poorly differentiated squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, adenosquamous carcinoma, small cell carcinoma, large cell undifferentiated carcinoma, and carcinosarcoma. After 4 to 12 weeks, xenografts were harvested for serial transplantation and comparison with the original tissue via histologic, chromosomal, and cytogenetic analyses. RESULTS: Xenografts were successfully established. H&E staining showed that xenografts retained major histologic features of the original cancers. Immunohistochemistry and fluorescence in situ hybridization confirmed the human origin of the tumor cells and development in xenografts of murine supportive stroma. Four transplantable lines were developed from rapidly growing tumors (>5 generations), i.e., a small cell lung carcinoma, large cell undifferentiated carcinoma, pulmonary carcinosarcoma, and squamous cell carcinoma. Analyses including spectral karyotyping, comparative genomic hybridization, and fluorescence in situ hybridization, revealed that the xenografts were genetically similar to the original tumors, showing chromosomal abnormalities consistent with karyotypic changes reported for lung cancer. CONCLUSIONS: The subrenal capsule xenograft approach essentially provides a living tumor bank derived from patient material and a means for isolating and expanding specific cell populations. The transplantable tumor lines seem to provide good models for studying various aspects of tumor progression and a platform for developing novel therapeutic regimens, with the possibility of patient-tailored therapies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".