4.6 Article

Establishment and Characterization of Orthotopic Mouse Models for Human Uveal Melanoma Hepatic Colonization

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PATHOLOGY
卷 186, 期 1, 页码 43-56

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajpath.2015.09.011

关键词

-

资金

  1. Bonnie Kroll Research Fund
  2. Mark Weinzierl Research Fund
  3. Eye Melanoma Research Fund at Thomas Jefferson University
  4. NIH [R01 GM067893]
  5. Dean's Transformative Science Award, a Thomas Jefferson University Programatic Initiative Award

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Uveal melanoma (UM) is a rare type of melanoma, although it is the most common primary ocular malignant tumor in adults. Nearly one-half the patients with primary UM subsequently develop systemic metastasis, preferentially to the liver. Currently, no treatment is effective for UM hepatic metastasis, and the prognosis is universally poor. The main challenge in designing a treatment strategy for UM hepatic metastasis is the Lack of suitable animal models. We developed two orthotopic mouse models for human UM hepatic metastases: direct hepatic implantation model (intrahepatic dissemination model) and splenic-implantation model (hematogenous dissemination model) and investigated the tumorgenesis in the liver. A human UM cell Line, established from a hepatic metastasis and nonobese diabetic severe combined immunodeficient gamma mice, were used for development of in vivo tumor models. In the direct hepatic implantation model, a localized tumor developed in the Liver in all cases and intrahepatic dissemination was subsequently seen in about one-half of cases. However, in the splenic implantation model, multiple hepatic metastases were observed after splenic implantation. Hepatic tumors subsequently seeded intra-abdominal metastasis; however, lung metastases were not seen. These findings are consistent with those observed in human UM hepatic metastases. These orthotopic mouse models offer useful tools to investigate the biological behavior of human UM cells in the liver.

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

4.6
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