Cancer study pulled for problems
Unknown Title
Not medical advice. For informational purposes only. Always consult a healthcare professional. Terms
Systematic Reviews & Meta-Analyses
Max 100Randomized Controlled Trials
Max 90Cohort Studies
Max 72Case-Control Studies
Max 58Cross-Sectional Studies
Max 44Case Reports & Case Series
Max 30Expert Opinion & Narrative Reviews
Max 50 / 44
Evidence Score
A snapshot of a population at a single point in time. Can identify correlations and prevalence, but cannot determine the direction of cause and effect.
Not medical advice. For informational purposes only. Always consult a healthcare professional. Terms
Systematic Reviews & Meta-Analyses
Max 100Randomized Controlled Trials
Max 90Cohort Studies
Max 72Case-Control Studies
Max 58Cross-Sectional Studies
Max 44Case Reports & Case Series
Max 30Expert Opinion & Narrative Reviews
Max 50 / 44
Evidence Score
A snapshot of a population at a single point in time. Can identify correlations and prevalence, but cannot determine the direction of cause and effect.
Publication
Related Content
Claims (10)
Using a special virus to deliver a genetic tool that blocks ER-α gene activity successfully lowered ER-α levels in liver cancer cells within a day or two.
Blocking ER-α in liver cancer cells made them grow much slower in lab tests, with about a third less growth in some tests and half fewer colonies forming in soft agar.
When ER-α was blocked in liver cancer cells, fewer cells were in the DNA-copying phase of the cell cycle and more cells died through programmed cell death.
Using a virus to deliver the genetic tool worked better than other methods, with about 80% of liver cancer cells taking up the treatment successfully.
When ER-α was blocked in liver cancer cells, fewer cells were in the DNA-copying phase and more cells died, which explains why the cells grew slower.