Literature DB >> 15302991

Quantitative angiogenesis assays in vivo--a review.

Jurjees Hasan1, S D Shnyder, M Bibby, J A Double, R Bicknel, G C Jayson.   

Abstract

The development of agents that target tumour vasculature is ultimately dependent on the availability of appropriate preclinical screening assays. Several quantitative angiogenesis assays exist, each with its own unique characteristics and disadvantages. In this review we discuss some of the commonly used assays, their methodological pitfalls and current use. The corneal micropocket and the CAM assay are well established. However, the matrix-implant assays have the potential advantage of replicating the hypoxic tumour microenvironment, thus making them suitable for the study of tumour angiogenesis. The ideal quantitative angiogenesis assay does not exist and the use of two complimentary quantitative assays, such as a matrix implant assay and a microcirculatory preparation like the CAM or corneal micropocket assay, provides the best compromise. Newer models like the hollow-fibre assay are being developed and older ones refined. Assay systems should reflect distinct disease processes. Thus it is appropriate to develop assays that study exclusively pro- or anti-angiogenic compounds or anti-vascular agents. Criticisms of currently available screening systems are that the predictive value of current screening systems remains to be established as anti-angiogenic agents are still in clinical development. Anti-angiogenic agents are likely to be most effective as chronic therapy for remission maintenance in the metastatic setting or as adjuvant therapy in patients at high risk of relapse, an important clinical aspect not addressed in animal models of tumour angiogenesis. Histological analysis still provides the most detailed information on in vivo angiogenesis. However, angiogenesis is a dynamic process and assays that permit continuous monitoring of the angiogenic response and provide information on the physiological characteristics of new vessels will be distinctly advantageous over older systems. The development of non-invasive techniques for quantitation of angiogenesis will greatly facilitate this process.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15302991     DOI: 10.1023/B:AGEN.0000037338.51851.d1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Angiogenesis        ISSN: 0969-6970            Impact factor:   9.596


  25 in total

1.  Computerized analysis of digital subtraction angiography: a tool for quantitative in-vivo vascular imaging.

Authors:  George C Kagadis; Panagiota Spyridonos; Dimitris Karnabatidis; Athanassios Diamantopoulos; Emmanouil Athanasiadis; Antonis Daskalakis; Konstantinos Katsanos; Dionisios Cavouras; Dimitris Mihailidis; Dimitris Siablis; George C Nikiforidis
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2007-08-03       Impact factor: 4.056

Review 2.  Cardiovascular actions of neurotrophins.

Authors:  Andrea Caporali; Costanza Emanueli
Journal:  Physiol Rev       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 37.312

Review 3.  Spatiotemporal control over growth factor signaling for therapeutic neovascularization.

Authors:  Lan Cao; David J Mooney
Journal:  Adv Drug Deliv Rev       Date:  2007-08-16       Impact factor: 15.470

4.  Biomimetic model to reconstitute angiogenic sprouting morphogenesis in vitro.

Authors:  Duc-Huy T Nguyen; Sarah C Stapleton; Michael T Yang; Susie S Cha; Colin K Choi; Peter A Galie; Christopher S Chen
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2013-04-08       Impact factor: 11.205

5.  Ultrasound assessment of angiogenesis in a matrigel model in rats.

Authors:  Susanne M Stieger; Susannah H Bloch; Oded Foreman; Erik R Wisner; Katherine W Ferrara; Paul A Dayton
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 2.998

6.  Renal Perfusion Pressure Determines Infiltration of Leukocytes in the Kidney of Rats With Angiotensin II-Induced Hypertension.

Authors:  Satoshi Shimada; Justine M Abais-Battad; Ammar J Alsheikh; Chun Yang; Megan Stumpf; Theresa Kurth; David L Mattson; Allen W Cowley
Journal:  Hypertension       Date:  2020-08-03       Impact factor: 10.190

7.  The zebrafish/tumor xenograft angiogenesis assay as a tool for screening anti-angiogenic miRNAs.

Authors:  Elena Chiavacci; Milena Rizzo; Letizia Pitto; Francesca Patella; Monica Evangelista; Laura Mariani; Giuseppe Rainaldi
Journal:  Cytotechnology       Date:  2014-06-20       Impact factor: 2.058

Review 8.  Use of the in vivo hollow fiber assay in natural products anticancer drug discovery.

Authors:  Qiuwen Mi; John M Pezzuto; Norman R Farnsworth; Mansukh C Wani; A Douglas Kinghorn; Steven M Swanson
Journal:  J Nat Prod       Date:  2009-03-27       Impact factor: 4.050

9.  A review on angiogenesis and its assays.

Authors:  Zoya Tahergorabi; Majid Khazaei
Journal:  Iran J Basic Med Sci       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 2.699

10.  An in vivo neovascularization assay for screening regulators of angiogenesis and assessing their effects on pre-existing vessels.

Authors:  Witold W Kilarski; Ludvig Petersson; Peder Fredlund Fuchs; Marcin S Zielinski; Pär Gerwins
Journal:  Angiogenesis       Date:  2012-08-24       Impact factor: 9.596

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.