Identification and characterization of a spontaneous ovarian carcinoma in Lewis rats
© Sharrow et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2010
Received: 1 October 2009
Accepted: 31 March 2010
Published: 31 March 2010
Ovarian carcinoma is the fourth most common cause of death from cancer in women. Limited progress has been made toward improving the survival rate of patients with this disease in part because of the lack of a good animal model. We present here a model of spontaneous ovarian carcinoma arising in a normal Lewis rat.
A spontaneously occurring tumor of the left ovary was found in a normal Lewis rat during necropsy, which was sectioned for histological examination and placed into single cell suspension. Tumor cells were passaged in vivo by intraperitoneal injection into immunocompetent Lewis rats, and in vitro culture resulted in generation of a cell line. Tumor cells were examined by flow cytometry for expression of estrogen receptor α, progesterone receptor, androgen receptor, her-2/neu, epithelial cell adhesion molecule, and CA125. β-catenin expression and cellular localization was assessed by immunocytochemistry. RNA was harvested for gene expression profiling and studying the expression of cytokines.
The tumor, designated FNAR, could be serially transplanted into Lewis rats and propagated as a cell line in vitro, maintaining the properties of the original tumor. The FNAR cells displayed striking morphologic similarities to human ovarian carcinoma, resembling the endometrioid carcinoma subtype of surface epithelial neoplasms. The cells expressed estrogen receptor α, progesterone receptor, androgen receptor, her-2/neu, epithelial cell adhesion molecule, CA125, and nuclear β-catenin. A gene expression profile showed upregulation of a number of genes that are also upregulated in human ovarian carcinoma.
This reliable model of ovarian carcinoma should be helpful in better understanding the biology of the disease as well as the development of novel treatment strategies.
Ovarian cancer is the fifth most commonly diagnosed cancer in women and the fourth most common cause of death from cancer . The high mortality can be attributed to the high percentage of affected women presenting at an advanced stage, with spread within the peritoneal cavity [2, 3]. With current therapies, including surgical debulking and platinum-based chemotherapy, patients in stage III or stage IV only have a 20% chance of long-term survival [2, 3]. Better understanding ovarian carcinoma biology, as well as the development of new therapies for the disease, has been hampered by the lack of suitable animal models.
Current ovarian cancer models fall into three broad categories: rare spontaneous carcinomas, induced tumors, and human xenografts . Although these models have allowed researchers to gain valuable insights into the biology of ovarian cancer, each model exhibits important limitations [4, 5]. Spontaneous ovarian cancer has been observed in mice, rats, and hens [6–8]. The drawback to these models is that the cancers tend to occur at an advanced age and at similar low frequencies as in humans. The low incidence and the length of time required for the development of these tumors render them of limited use for studying the biology and treatment of ovarian carcinoma. Induced tumor models circumvent these problems but create their own artificial systems, which may not accurately reflect the human disease. In one model of in vitro transformation, ovarian surface epithelium cells are subcloned until they exhibit the loss of contact inhibition, the capacity for substrate-independent growth, cytogenetic abnormalities, and the ability to form tumors when injected subcutaneously and/or intraperitoneally into athymic mice . This model, though, fails to account for critical interactions between the cancer cells and the host. Also, it is uncertain if these cells or their malignant transformation are representative of normal human cells or clinical disease.
Animal models have been generated by expressing simian virus 40 large T antigen , by inactivating p53 and Rb1 , by inactivating p53 and activating an oncogene , and through hormone treatment [13–15]. The high rate of cancer development in these animals makes these models attractive, but they may not reliably represent human cancer because a majority of these genetic changes usually do not occur in patients. Xenografts of human cancers have undergone continuous improvement over the past twenty years [16–19]. These models allow for direct examination of the human cancer but do not allow the study of the early stages of the cancer. These models also rely on an immune-deficient host, which eliminates the interaction between the cancer and the immune system.
We present a new model of ovarian carcinoma, designated FNAR, that spontaneously developed in an untreated, previously normal Lewis rat. The tumor could be serially passaged both in vivo as malignant ascites in rats and in vitro. Importantly, the biologic characteristics of the tumor closely paralleled one type of human ovarian carcinoma.
Female Lewis strain rats aged 4-6 weeks (purchased from Charles River Breeding Laboratories, Inc., Wilmington, MA) were kept in sterile micro-isolator cages and fed food and water ad libitum. The institutional guidelines of Johns Hopkins University concerning the care and use of research animals were followed. The animals were challenged intraperitoneally with graded numbers of FNAR cells and monitored daily for abdominal swelling. At various intervals after tumor challenge or when animals appeared moribund (pallor, lethargy, and marked abdominal distension), the animals were sacrificed by CO2 asphyxiation and the cells within the peritoneal cavity harvested by flushing the abdomen with 35 milliliters of sterile phosphate buffered saline (PBS, Grand Island Biological Co., Gibco BRL, Grand Island, NY). At sacrifice, the animals were examined for tumor growth and tissues taken for histological examination.
In vitro propagation and growth curve
A cell line (FNAR) that grows in vitro as an adherent monolayer was established by culture in RPMI 1640 (Gibco) supplemented with 10% fetal calf serum in 30 ml tissue culture flasks (Corning Flask 3056, Corning Inc., Corning NY). Cells used for experiments were low passage and maintained in culture for one to three months. The doubling time of the cell line was measured by plating 104 cells into macrotiter wells then harvesting and counting at 19.5, 43.5, and 115.5 hours.
Flow Cytometric Analysis
Flow cytometry was utilized to assess in vitro FNAR cells for expression of known phenotypic markers. Briefly, 5 × 105 tumor cells were incubated in polystyrene tubes. Analysis of the intracellular antigens estrogen receptor α, progesterone receptor, and androgen receptor first required fixation in 2% formaldehyde (Polysciences, Warrington, PA) in phosphate buffered saline (PBS, Gibco Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA) for 15 minutes at 4°C followed by permeabilization with 0.1% Triton-X-100 (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO) in PBS for 15 minutes at 4°C. The cells were then incubated for 30 minutes at 4°C with commercially purchased murine monoclonal antibodies. The concentrations of antibodies used are as follows: estrogen receptor (ER) α at 8 μg/106 cells (Abcam, Cambridge, MA), progesterone receptor (PR) at 16 μg/106 cells (Affinity Bioreagents, Golden, CO), or androgen receptor (AR) at 2 μg/106 cells (Pharmingen, San Diego, CA). The cells were washed and counterstained with phycoerythrin (PE) rat anti-mouse IgG1 (Becton Dickinson, San Jose, CA) at 125 ng/106 cells for 30 minutes at 4°C. Commercially purchased murine monoclonal antibody to the rat c-neu oncogene product (Calbiochem, San Diego, CA) was used at 1 μg/106 cells and was counterstained with PE rat anti-mouse IgG2a+b (Becton Dickinson, San Jose, CA) at 30 ng/106 cells for 30 minutes at 4°C. Tumor cells incubated with secondary antibody alone served as a negative control. Epithelial cell adhesion molecule (EPCAM) expression was analyzed using a PE-conjugated antibody (Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA) at 1 μg/106 cells with mouse IgG1-PE as a negative control (Becton Dickinson, San Jose, CA). A commercially available rabbit polyclonal antibody to CA125 (Abbiotec, San Diego, CA) was used at 2 μg/106 cells and counterstained with 1 μg/106 cells APC goat anti-rabbit IgG (Invitrogen Molecular Probes, Carlsbad, CA). The cells were analyzed on a Becton-Dickinson FACSCalibur flow cytometer and data was analyzed using FlowJo (Tree Star, Inc, Ashland, OR).
FNAR cells were plated onto four-well CultureSlides (BD Falcon, San Jose, CA). Cells were fixed in 2% formaldehyde in PBS for 20 minutes followed by permeabilization in 0.5% Triton X-100 in PBS for 10 minutes. Cells were then incubated with a mouse monoclonal antibody to beta-catenin conjugated to Cy3 (Abcam, Cambridge, MA) at 6 μg/ml for one hour and counterstained with 500 ng/ml DAPI for five minutes (Invitrogen Molecular Probes, Carlsbad, CA). Images were captured using the Nikon Eclipse E800 (Tokyo, Japan) at 200× magnification with standard filters for DAPI and Cy3, the DS-QiMc digital camera (Nikon, Tokyo, Japan), and the Advanced Research Elements AR 3.0 software (Nikon, Tokyo, Japan).
Gene Expression Analysis by cDNA Microarrays
RNA was extracted and purified from cell lysates of 1-5 × 105 in vitro FNAR tumor cells and the REH cell line of normal rat endothelial cells, as a control, with 500 μl Trizol reagent (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA). Tissue samples were frozen in liquid nitrogen and pulverized with a mortar and pestle. The powder was dissolved in Trizol and centrifuged. Purified RNA was dissolved in 20 μl diethyl-pyrocarbonate-treated distilled water. The resulting RNA was analyzed at the Johns Hopkins microarray core. RNA from control and experimental samples was processed using the RNA amplification protocol described by Affymetrix (Affymetrix Expression Manual). Briefly, 5 μg of total RNA was used to synthesize first strand cDNA using the SuperScript Choice System (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, California) and oligonucleotide primers with 24 oligo-dT plus the T7 promoter (Proligo LLC, Boulder, Colorado). Following the double stranded cDNA synthesis, the product was purified by phenol-chloroform extraction and biotinilated anti-sense cRNA was generated through in vitro transcription using the BioArray RNA High Yield Transcript Labeling kit (ENZO Life Sciences Inc., Farmingdale, New York). Fifteen μg of the biotinilated cRNA was fragmented at 94°C for 35 minutes in buffer (100 mM Tris-acetate, pH 8.2, 500 mM potassium acetate, and 150 mM magnesium acetate), and 10 μg of total fragmented cRNA was hybridized to the Affymetrix GeneChip rat 230 2.0 array (Santa Clara, CA) for 16 hours at 45°C with constant rotation (60 rpm). Affymetrix Fluidics Station 450 was then used to wash and stain the chips with a streptavidin-phycoerythrin conjugate. The staining was then amplified as follows: blocking was performed using goat IgG, then a biotinilated anti-streptavidin antibody (goat) was bound to the initial staining, and amplification was completed by the addition of a streptavidin-phycoerythrin conjugate. Fluorescence was detected using the Affymetrix 3000 7G GeneArray Scanner and image analysis of each GeneChip was done through the GeneChip Operating System 1.4.0 (GCOS) software from Affymetrix using the standard default settings. For comparison between different chips, global scaling was used to scale all probesets to a user defined target intensity (TGT) of 150.
Quantitative RT-PCR for Cytokine Expression
Quantitative RT-PCR (Taqman, Applied Biosystems, ABI, Foster City, CA) was utilized to assess levels of cytokine mRNA transcripts of in vitro FNAR cells as previously described . The oligonucleotide primers and fluoresceinated probes for the cytokine genes (IL-6, IL-12, and IL-18), ER, PR, and stathmin were purchased from ABI. Data were analyzed in real-time with Sequencer Detection version 1.6 software, with the results normalized against mRNA transcripts for the housekeeping gene glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GADPH).
Description of proband
In vivo and in vitro growth characteristics
Survival after intraperitoneal injection of FNAR cells.
Survival Following Tumor Challenge
No. of Cells Injected
No. of Animals
Survival - Days
(No. of Animals)
5 × 104
N = 6
1 × 105
N = 8
150 (4) 155 (3), 160 (1)
5 × 105
N = 6
155 (2), 160 (4)
1 × 106
N = 6
150 (5), 152 (1)
Biological characterization of FNAR
Gene chip analysis of FNAR.
Gene Expression Profiling of FNAR Cells
EST Accession #
We present here a model of ovarian carcinoma, designated FNAR, that arose spontaneously in a normal Lewis rat. Importantly, FNAR's biology closely parallels the human disease. IP transplantation into rats produces malignant ascites and peritoneal carcinomatosis, leading to death at 5-6 months. The tumor only develops in the peritoneal cavity, suggesting the tumor microenvironment is intact during formation. Cells from the tumor can be easily passaged in vitro, and the cell line shows similar growth characteristics when returned to rats. Its morphology and expression of EPCAM are consistent with an epithelial carcinoma, and like human ovarian carcinoma, it expresses her-2/neu, sex hormone receptors, and characteristic cytokines. FNAR also displays a similar gene expression pattern to the human disease. Consistent with the endometrioid subtype, FNAR cells show cell-surface expression of CA125 and nuclear expression of β-catenin.
The FNAR model may address many of the limitation of current model systems for ovarian carcinoma. Rats transplanted with FNAR consistently become moribund by 5-6 months, avoiding the low frequency and long latency of spontaneous animal models. Xenografts of primary human tumors in immunodeficient mice are perhaps the most attractive current model [16–19]. Although spontaneous human cancers can be studied and used to test treatments in these mice, the study of immunotherapeutic approaches is problematic. Conversely, FNAR develops in immunocompetent rats, allowing the study of immunotherapeutic approaches. The expression of all three sex hormone receptors and her-2/neu also allows for manipulations of these pathways using this model. However, the application of this model to the treatment of human disease remains to be established.
- Jemal A, Tiwari RC, Murray T, Ghafoor A, Samuels A, Ward E, Feuer EJ, Thun MJ: Cancer Statistics, 2004. CA Cancer J Clin 2004, 54: 8–29. 10.3322/canjclin.54.1.8View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Cannistra SA: Cancer of the ovary. The New England Journal of Medicine 1993, 329: 1550–1559. 10.1056/NEJM199311183292108View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Armstrong DK, Bundy B, Wenzel L, Huang HQ, Baergen R, Lele S, Copeland LJ, Walker JL, Burger RA: Intraperitoneal Cisplatin and Paclitaxel in Ovarian Cancer. N Engl J Med 2006, 354: 34–43. 10.1056/NEJMoa052985View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Garson K, Shaw TJ, Clark KV, Yao D-S, Vanderhyden BC: Models of ovarian cancer--Are we there yet? Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology 2005, 239: 15–26. 10.1016/j.mce.2005.03.019View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Vanderhyden B, Shaw T, Ethier J-F: Animal models of ovarian cancer. Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology 2003, 1: 67. 10.1186/1477-7827-1-67PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Beamer WG, Hoppe PC, Whitten WK: Spontaneous Malignant Granulosa Cell Tumors in Ovaries of Young SWR Mice. Cancer Res 1985, 45: 5575–5581.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Walsh KM, Poteracki J: Spontaneous Neoplasms in Control Wistar Rats. Fundamental and Applied Toxicology 1994, 22: 65–72. 10.1006/faat.1994.1009View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Fredrickson TN: Ovarian Tumors of the Hen. Environmental Health Perspectives 1987, 73: 35–51. 10.2307/3430596PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Godwin AK, Testa JR, Handel LM, Liu Z, Vanderveer LA, Tracey PA, Hamilton TC: Spontaneous Transformation of Rat Ovarian Surface Epithelial Cells: Association With Cytogenetic Changes and Implications of Repeated Ovulation in the Etiology of Ovarian Cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1992, 84: 592–601. 10.1093/jnci/84.8.592View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Connolly DC, Bao R, Nikitin AY, Stephens KC, Poole TW, Hua X, Harris SS, Vanderhyden BC, Hamilton TC: Female Mice Chimeric for Expression of the Simian Virus 40 TAg under Control of the MISIIR Promoter Develop Epithelial Ovarian Cancer. Cancer Res 2003, 63: 1389–1397.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Flesken-Nikitin A, Choi K-C, Eng JP, Shmidt EN, Nikitin AY: Induction of Carcinogenesis by Concurrent Inactivation of p53 and Rb1 in the Mouse Ovarian Surface Epithelium. Cancer Res 2003, 63: 3459–3463.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Orsulic S, Li Y, Soslow RA, Vitale-Cross LA, Gutkind JS, Varmus HE: Induction of ovarian cancer by defined multiple genetic changes in a mouse model system. Cancer Cell 2002, 1: 53–62. 10.1016/S1535-6108(01)00002-2PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Keri RA, Lozada KL, Abdul-Karim FW, Nadeau JH, Nilson JH: Luteinizing hormone induction of ovarian tumors: Oligogenic differences between mouse strains dictates tumor disposition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2000, 97: 383–387. 10.1073/pnas.97.1.383View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Bai W, Oliveros-Saunders B, Wang Q, Acevedo-Duncan ME, Nicosia SV: Estrogen stimulation of ovarian surface epithelial cell proliferation. In Vitro Cellular& Developmental Biology - Animal 2000, 36: 657–666.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Silva EG, Tornos C, Deavers M, Kaisman K, Gray K, Gershenson D: Induction of Epithelial Neoplasms in the Ovaries of Guinea Pigs by Estrogenic Stimulation. Gynecologic Oncology 1998, 71: 240–246. 10.1006/gyno.1998.5153View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hamilton TC, Young RC, Louie KG, Behrens BC, McKoy WM, Grotzinger KR, Ozols RF: Characterization of a Xenograft Model of Human Ovarian Carcinoma Which Produces Ascites and Intraabdominal Carcinomatosis in Mice. Cancer Res 1984, 44: 5286–5290.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Molpus KL, Koelliker D, Atkins L, Kato DT, Buczek-Thomas J, Fuller AF Jr, Hasan T: Characterization of a xenograft model of human ovarian carcinoma which produces intraperitoneal carcinomatosis and metastases in mice. International Journal of Cancer 1996, 68: 588–595. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0215(19961127)68:5<588::AID-IJC6>3.0.CO;2-VView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Rose GS, Tocco LM, Granger GA, DiSaia PJ, Hamilton TC, Santin AD, Hiserodt JC: Development and characterization of a clinically useful animal model of epithelial ovarian cancer in the Fischer 344 rat. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1996, 175: 593–599. 10.1053/ob.1996.v175.a73595View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Sallinen H, Anttila M, Narvainen J, Orden M-R, Ropponen K, Kosma V-M, Heinonen S, Yla-Herttuala S: A highly reproducible xenograft model for human ovarian carcinoma and application of MRI and ultrasound in longitudinal follow-up. Gynecologic Oncology 2006, 103: 315–320. 10.1016/j.ygyno.2006.03.030View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Chen W, Thoburn C, Hess AD: Characterization of the Pathogenic Autoreactive T Cells in Cyclosporine-Induced Syngeneic Graft-Versus-Host Disease. J Immunol 1998, 161: 7040–7046.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lee P, Rosen DG, Zhu C, Silva EG, Liu J: Expression of progesterone receptor is a favorable prognostic marker in ovarian cancer. GynecolOncol 2005, 96: 671–677.Google Scholar
- Cunat S, Hoffmann P, Pujol P: Estrogens and epithelial ovarian cancer. Gynecologic Oncology 2004, 94: 25–32. 10.1016/j.ygyno.2004.03.026View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Ho S-M: Estrogen, Progesterone and Epithelial Ovarian Cancer. Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology 2003., 1: 10.1186/1477-7827-1-73Google Scholar
- van Doorn HC, Burger CW, Valk P, Bonfrer HMG: Oestrogen, progesterone, and androgen receptors in ovarian neoplasia: correlation between immunohistochemical and biochemical receptor analyses. J Clin Pathol 2000, 53: 201–205. 10.1136/jcp.53.3.201PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lee BH, Hecht JL, Pinkus JL, Pinkus GS: WT1, Estrogen Receptor, and Progesterone Receptor as Markers for Breast or Ovarian Primary Sites in Metastatic Adenocarcinoma to Body Fluids. American Journal of Clinical Pathology 2002, 117: 745–750. 10.1309/QLV6-HH0H-UCTF-WEF6View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Chadha S, Rao BR, Slotman BJ, van Vroonhoven CCJ, Kwast TH: An immunohistochemical evaluation of androgen and progesterone receptors in ovarian tumors. Human Pathology 1993, 24: 90–95. 10.1016/0046-8177(93)90067-QView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Ordóñez NG: Value of estrogen and progesterone receptor immunostaining in distinguishing between peritoneal mesotheliomas and serous carcinomas. Human Pathology 2005, 36: 1163–1167. 10.1016/j.humpath.2005.08.008View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Verri E, Guglielmini P, Puntoni M, Perdelli L, Papadia A, Lorenzi P, Rubagotti A, Ragni N, Boccardo F: HER2/neu Oncoprotein Overexpression in Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: Evaluation of its Prevalence and Prognostic Significance. Oncology 2005, 68: 154–161. 10.1159/000086958View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Nielsen JS, Jakobsen E, Holund B, Bertelsen K, Jakobsen A: Prognostic significance of p53, Her-2, and EGFR overexpression in borderline and epithelial ovarian cancer. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer 2004, 14: 1086–1096. 10.1111/j.1048-891X.2004.14606.xView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Chauhan SC, Singh AP, Ruiz F, Johansson SL, Jain M, Smith LM, Moniaux N, Batra SK: Aberrant expression of MUC4 in ovarian carcinoma: diagnostic significance alone and in combination with MUC1 and MUC16 (CA125). Mod Pathol 2006, 19: 1386–1394. 10.1038/modpathol.3800646View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kildal W, Risberg B, Abeler VM, Kristensen GB, Sudbø J, Nesland JM, Danielsen HE: [beta]-catenin expression, DNA ploidy and clinicopathological features in ovarian cancer: A study in 253 patients. European Journal of Cancer 2005, 41: 1127–1134. 10.1016/j.ejca.2005.01.022View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- McCluggage WG, Strand K, Abdulkadir A: Immunohistochemical localization of metallothionein in benign and malignant epithelial ovarian tumors. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer 2002, 12: 62–65. 10.1046/j.1525-1438.2002.01081.xView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Bayani J, Brenton JD, Macgregor PF, Beheshti B, Albert M, Nallainathan D, Karaskova J, Rosen B, Murphy J, Laframboise S, et al.: Parallel Analysis of Sporadic Primary Ovarian Carcinomas by Spectral Karyotyping, Comparative Genomic Hybridization, and Expression Microarrays. Cancer Res 2002, 62: 3466–3476.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Surowiak P, Materna V, Kaplenko I, Spaczyñski M, Dietel M, Lage H, Zabel M: Augmented expression of metallothionein and glutathione S-transferase pi as unfavourable prognostic factors in cisplatin-treated ovarian cancer patients. Virchows Archiv 2005, 447: 626–633. 10.1007/s00428-005-1228-0View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Yamada M, Tomida A, Yoshikawa H, Taketani Y, Tsuruo T: Increased expression of thioredoxin/adult T-cell leukemia-derived factor in cisplatin-resistant human cancer cell lines. Clin Cancer Res 1996, 2: 427–432.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Wei S-H, Lin F, Wang X, Gao P, Zhang H-Z: Prognostic significance of stathmin expression in correlation with metastasis and clinicopathological characteristics in human ovarian carcinoma. Acta Histochemica 2008, 110: 59–65. 10.1016/j.acthis.2007.06.002View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Balachandran R, Welsh MJ, Day BW: Altered levels and regulation of stathmin in paclitaxel-resistant ovarian cancer cells. Oncogene 2003, 22: 8924–8930. 10.1038/sj.onc.1207060View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Alaiya AA, FranzÈn B, Fujioka K, Moberger B, Schedvins K, Silfversvärd C, Linder S, Auer G: Phenotypic analysis of ovarian carcinoma: Polypeptide expression in benign, borderline and malignant tumors. International Journal of Cancer 1997, 73: 678–682. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0215(19971127)73:5<678::AID-IJC11>3.0.CO;2-2View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Martoglio AM, Tom BD, Starkey M, Corps AN, Charnock-Jones DS, Smith SK: Changes in tumorigenesis- and angiogenesis-related gene transcript abundance profiles in ovarian cancer detected by tailored high density cDNA arrays. Mol Med 2000, 6: 750–765.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Ziltener HJ, Maines-Bandiera S, Schrader JW, Auersperg N: Secretion of bioactive interleukin-1, interleukin-6, and colony- stimulating factors by human ovarian surface epithelium. Biol Reprod 1993, 49: 635–641. 10.1095/biolreprod49.3.635View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Johanna GW, Asschert EV, Ruiters MarcelHJ, de Vries ElisabethGE: Regulation of spontaneous and TNF/IFN-induced IL-6 expression in two human ovarian-carcinoma cell lines. International Journal of Cancer 1999, 82: 244–249. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0215(19990719)82:2<244::AID-IJC15>3.0.CO;2-NView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Wang ZY, Gaggero A, Rubartelli A, Rosso O, Miotti S, Mezzanzanica D, Canevari S, Ferrini S: Expression of interleukin-18 in human ovarian carcinoma and normal ovarian epithelium: Evidence for defective processing in tumor cells. International Journal of Cancer 2002, 98: 873–878. 10.1002/ijc.10268View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Bozkurt N, Yuce K, Basaran M, Gariboglu S, Kose F, Ayhan A: Correlation of serum and ascitic IL-12 levels with second-look laparotomy results and disease progression in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer patients. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer 2006, 16: 83–86. 10.1111/j.1525-1438.2006.00464.xView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.