Cell-cell interactions in spheroids maintained in suspension

References

• Salmon SE, Hamburger AW. Primary bioassay of human tumor stem cells. Science 1977; 197: 461–3
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Courtney VD, Selby PJ, Smith JE, Mills J, Peckham MJ. Growth of human tumor cell colonies from biopsies using two soft-agar techniques. Brit J Cancer 1978; 38: 77–81
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• West CML, Davidson SE. The independence of intrinsic radiosensitivity as a prognostic factor for patient response to radiotherapy for carcinoma of the cervix. Br J Cancer 1997; 76: 1184–90
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawton PA, Hodgkiss RJ, Eyden BP, Joiner MC. Growth of fibroblasts as a potential confounding factor in soft agar clonogenic assays for tumor cell radiosensitivity. Radiother Oncol 1994; 32: 218–25
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stausbol-Gron B, Nielsen OS, Moller Bentzen S, Overgaard J. Selective assessment of in vitro radiosensitivity of tumor cells and fibroblasts from single tumor biopsies using immunocytochemical identification of colonies in the soft agar clonogenic assay. Radiother Oncol 1995; 37: 87–99
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Djordjevic B, Lange CS. Clonogenicity of mammalian cells in hybrid spheroids: A new assay method. Radiat Environ Biophys 1990; 29: 31–46
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lange CS, Djordjevic B, Brock WA. The hybrid spheroid clonogenic assay for the intrinsic radio- and chemo-sensitivities of human tumors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1992; 24: 511–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Djordjevic B, Lange CS. Measurement of sensitivity to adriamycin in hybrid spheroids. Cancer Invest 1991; 9: 505–12
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Djordjevic B, Lange CS, Rotman MZ, Torres C, Zheng Z. Increasing radiosensitivity in the course of fractionated×irradiation: The effect of contact with dead and dying cells. Radiat Res 1998; 150: 275–82
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Djordjevic B, Lange CS. Hybrid spheroids as a tool for prediction of radiosensitivity in tumor therapy. Indian J Exper Biol 2004; 42: 443–7
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Djordjevic B. Bystander effect: A concept in need of clarification. BioEssays 2000; 22: 286–90
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Azzam EI, Little JB. The radiation-induced bystander effect: Evidence and significance. Hum Exp Toxicol 2004; 23: 61–5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iyer R, Lehnert BE. Effects of ionizing radiation in targeted and nontargeted cells. Arch Biochem Biophys 2000; 376: 14–25
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seymour CB, Mothersill C. Relative contribution of bystander and targeted cell killing to the low-dose region of the radiation dose-response curve. Radiat Res 2000; 153: 508–11
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ishii K, Watanabe M. Participation of the gap-junctional cell communication on the adaptive response in human cells induced by low dose of X-rays. Int J Radiat Biol 1996; 69: 291–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bishayee A, Rao DV, Howell RW. Evidence for pronounced bystander effects caused by nonuniform distributions of radioactivity using a novel three-dimensional tissue culture model. Radiat Res 1999; 152: 88–97
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Azzam EI, De Toledo SM, Gooding T, Little J. Intercellular communication is involved in the bystander regulation of gene expression in human cells exposed to very low fluences of alpha particles. Radiat Res 1998; 150: 497–504
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hill HZ, Trizna Z, Hill GJ. A radiation resistance factor in cultured Cloudman mouse melanoma cells. Radiat Res 1992; 129: 43–7
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Iyer R, Lehnert BE. Factors underlying the cell growth-related bystander response to α particles. Cancer Res 2000; 60: 1290–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prise KM, Belyakov OV, Folkard M, Michael BD. Studies of bystander effects in human fibroblasts using a charged particle microbeam. Int J Radiat Biol 1998; 74: 793–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sinclair WK, Morton RA. Recovery following x-irradiation of synchronized Chinese hamster cells. Nature 1964; 203: 247–50
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Elkind MM, Whitmore GF. In: The Radiobiology of Cultured Mammalian Cells. New York: Gordon and Breach; 1967. p 69–74.
   Google Scholar
• Hald A. In: Statistical Theory with Engineering Applications. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc: 1952. See sections 5.7–5.9 and 5.16–5.17, esp. Eq.5.17.7.
   Google Scholar
• Lange CS, Liberman DF, Clark RW, Ferguson P. The organization and repair of DNA in the mammalian chromosome. I. Calibration procedures and errors in the determination of the molecular weight of a native DNA. Biopolymers 1977;1063–81.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Puck TT, Markus PI. Action of X-rays on mammalian cells. J Exp Med 1956; 103: 653–66
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brock WA, Brown DW, Goepfert H, Peters LJ. In vitro radiosensitivity of tumor cells and local tumor control by radiotherapy. In: Dewey WC, Edington M, Fry RJM, Hall EJ, Whitmore GF, editors. Radiation Research: A Twentieth Century Perspective. San Diego: Academic Press; 1992. p 696–9.
   Google Scholar
• Parkins CS, Steel GG. Growth and radiosensitivity testing of human tumor cells using the adhesive tumor cell culture system. Br J Cancer 1990; 62: 935–41
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Edelman M, Gamara F, Kemp da Silva A, Hornung V, Castro M, Passlick B, et al. Cell cycle effects of radiation on human bronchial epithelium and lung carcinoma cells in monolayer cultures and a three-dimensional co-culture system. Radiat Res 2005; 164: 391–9
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Muerkoster S, Wegehenkel K, Arlt A, Witt M, Bence S, Kruse M, et al. Tumor stroma interactions induce chemoresistance in pancreatic ductal carcinoma cells involving increased secretion and paracrine effects of nitric oxide and interlukin-1β. Cancer Res 2004; 64: 1331–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sung SY, Chung LW. Prostate tumor–stroma interaction: Molecular mechanisms and opportunities for molecular targeting. Differentiation 2002; 70: 506–21
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar