4.2 Review

Evaluating dual activity LPA receptor pan-antagonist/autotaxin inhibitors as anti-cancer agents in vivo using engineered human tumors

期刊

PROSTAGLANDINS & OTHER LIPID MEDIATORS
卷 89, 期 3-4, 页码 140-146

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.prostaglandins.2009.07.006

关键词

LPA antagonist; ATX; Engineered tumor xenograft; Lung cancer; Synthetic extracellular matrix; Angiogenesis assay; Phosphonate analog

资金

  1. NINDS NIH HHS [R01 NS029632, R01 NS029632-17] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS AND STROKE [R01NS029632] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Using an in situ cross-linkable hydrogel that mimics the extracellular matrix (ECM), cancer cells were encapsulated and injected in vivo following a tumor engineering strategy for orthotopic xenografts. Specifically, we created several three-dimensional (3D)human tumor xenografts and evaluated the tumor response to BrP-LPA, a novel dual function LPA antagonist/ATX inhibitor (LPAa/ATXi). First, we describe the model system and the optimization of semi-synthetic ECM (sECM) compositions and injection parameters for engineered xenografts. Second, we summarize a study to compare angiogenesis inhibition in vivo, comparing BrP-LPA to the kinase inhibitor sunitinib maleate (Sutent). Third, we compare treatment of engineered breast tumors with LPAa/ATXi alone with treatment with Taxol. Fourth, using a re-optimized sECM for non-small cell lung cancer cells, we created reproducibly sized subcutaneous lung tumors and evaluated their response to treatment with LPAa/ATXi. Fifth, we summarize the data on the use of LPAa/ATXi to treat a model for colon cancer metastasis to the liver. Taken together, these improved, more realistic xenografts show considerable utility for evaluating the potential of novel anti-metastatic, anti-proliferative, and anti-angiogenic compounds that modify signal transduction through the LPA signaling pathway. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据