Tumor grafted – chick chorioallantoic membrane as an alternative model for biological cancer research and conventional/nanomaterial-based theranostics evaluation

References

• Antoni D, Burckel H, Josset E, et al. Culture: a breakthrough in vivo. Int J Mol Sci. 2015;16(3):5517–5527.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hirschhaeuser F, Menne H, Dittfeld C, et al. Multicellular tumor spheroids: an underestimated tool is catching up again. J Biotechnol. 2010;148(1):3–15.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nath S, Devi GR. Three-dimensional culture systems in cancer research: focus on tumor spheroid model. Pharmacol Ther. 2016;163:94–108.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Parliament. Directive 2010/63/EU - On the protection of animals used for scientific purposes https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2010/63/oj.
   Google Scholar
• Tannenbaum J, Bennett BT. Russell and Burch’s 3Rs then and now: the need for clarity in definition and purpose. J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci. 2015;54(2):120–132.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mapanao AK, Santi M, Combined Chemo-Photothermal VV. Treatment of three-dimensional head and neck squamous cell carcinomas by gold nano-architectures. J Colloid Interface Sci. 2021;582:1003–1011.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Kruijff RM, van der Meer AJGM, Windmeijer CAA, et al. The therapeutic potential of polymersomes loaded with 225Ac evaluated in 2D and 3D in vitro glioma models. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2018 (Oct 2017);127:85–91.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cassano D, Santi M, D’Autilia F, et al. Photothermal effect by NIR-responsive excretable ultrasmall-in-nano architectures. Mater Horizons. 2019;6(3):531–537.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mapanao AK, Voliani, V. Three-dimensional tumor models: promoting Breakthroughs in nanotheranostics translational research. Appl Mater Today. 2020;19:100552.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mangir N, Raza A, Haycock JW, et al. An improved in vivo methodology to visualise tumour induced changes in vasculature using the chick chorionic allantoic membrane assay. In Vivo (Brooklyn). 2018;32(3):461–472.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rovithi M, Avan A, Funel N, et al. Development of bioluminescent Chick Chorioallantoic Membrane (CAM) models for primary pancreatic cancer cells: a platform for drug testing. Sci Rep. July 2016;2017(7):1–13.
   Google Scholar
• Romanoff AL. From the egg to the chick. Cornell Rural School Leaflet. 1939;33(1):57–63.
   Google Scholar
• Smith TWJ. The avian embryo. Mississippi State University Extension Service. 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Ribatti, D. The chick embryo chorioallantoic membrane as a model for tumor biology. Exp Cell Res. 2014;328(2):314–324.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deryugina EI, Quigley JP. Chick embryo chorioallantoic membrane model systems to study and visualize human tumor cell metastasis. Histochem Cell Biol. 2008;130(6):1119–1130.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ribatti, D. The chick embryo Chorioallantoic Membrane (CAM). A multifaceted experimental model. Mech Dev. 2016;141:70–77.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gabrielli MG, Accili D. The Chick Chorioallantoic Membrane: a Model of Molecular, Structural, and Functional Adaptation to Transepithelial Ion Transport and Barrier Function during Embryonic Development. J Biomed Biotechnol. 2010;2010:940741.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Vargas A, Zeisser-Labouèbe M, Lange N, et al. The chick embryo and Its Chorioallantoic Membrane (CAM) for the in vivo evaluation of drug delivery systems. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2007;59(11):1162–1176.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samkoe KS, Clancy AA, Karotki A, et al. Complete blood vessel occlusion in the chick chorioallantoic membrane using two-photon excitation photodynamic therapy: implications for treatment of wet age-related macular degeneration. J Biomed Opt. 2007;12(3):034025.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ribatti D, Vacca A, Cantatore FP, et al. An experimental study in the chick embryo chorioallantoic membrane of the anti-angiogenic activity of cyclosporine in rheumatoid arthritis versus osteoarthritis. Inflamm Res. 2000;49(8):418–423.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moreno-Jiménez I, Hulsart-Billstrom G, Lanham SA, Janeczek AA, Kontouli N, Kanczler JM, Evans ND, Oreffo ROC. The Chorioallantoic Membrane (CAM) assay for the study of human bone regeneration: a refinement animal model for tissue engineering. Sci Rep. 2016;6(April): 1–12.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fredrickson TN, Sechler JMG, Palumbo GJ, et al. Acute inflammatory response to cowpox virus infection of the chorioallantoic membrane of the chick embryo. Virology. 1992;187(2):693–704.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ausprunk DH, Knighton DR, Folkman J. Vascularization of normal and neoplastic tissues grafted to the chick chorioallantois role of host and preexisting graft blood vessels. Am J Pathol. 1975;79(3):597–618.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanahan D, Weinberg RA. Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell. 2011;646–674. DOI:10.1016/j.cell.2011.02.013.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• El-Kenawi AE, El-Remessy AB. Angiogenesis inhibitors in cancer therapy: mechanistic perspective on classification and treatment rationales. BrJ Pharmacol. 2013;170(4):712–729.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berg EL, Hsu YC, Lee JA. Consideration of the cellular microenvironment: physiologically relevant co-culture systems in drug discovery. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2014;69–70:190–204.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chiew GGY, Wei N, Sultania S, et al. Bioengineered three-dimensional co-culture of cancer cells and endothelial cells: a model system for dual analysis of tumor growth and angiogenesis. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2017;114(8):1865–1877.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Duinen V, Trietsch SJ, Joore J, et al. Microfluidic 3D cell culture: from tools to tissue models. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2015;35:118–126.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sung KE, Beebe DJ. Microfluidic 3D models of cancer. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2014;79:68–78.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Albanese A, Lam AK, Sykes EA, et al. Tumour-on-a-chip provides an optical window into nanoparticle tissue transport. Nat Commun. 2013;4(1):2718.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Virumbrales-Muñoz M, Ayuso JM, Olave M, et al. Multiwell capillarity-based microfluidic device for the study of 3D tumour tissue-2D endothelium interactions and drug screening in co-culture models. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):1–15.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Li W, Khan M, Mao S, et al. Advances in Tumor-Endothelial Cells Co-Culture and Interaction on Microfluidics. J Pharm Anal. 2018;8(4):210–218.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Comşa Ş, Ceaușu AR, Popescu R, et al. The MSC-MCF-7 duet playing tumor vasculogenesis and angiogenesis onto the chick embryo chorioallantoic membrane. In Vivo (Brooklyn). 2020;34(6):3315–3325.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nowak-Sliwinska P, Segura T, Iruela-Arispe ML. The chicken chorioallantoic membrane model in biology, medicine and bioengineering. Angiogenesis. 2014;17(4):779–804.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Janse EM, Jeurissen SHM. Ontogeny and function of two non-lymphoid cell populations in the chicken embryo. Immunobiology. 1991;182(5):472–481.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dünker N, Jendrossek V. Implementation of the chick Chorioallantoic Membrane (CAM) model in radiation biology and experimental radiation oncology research. Cancers (Basel). 2019;11(10):10.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kleibeuker EA, Schulkens IAE, Castricum KCM, et al. Examination of the role of galectins during in vivo angiogenesis using the chick chorioallantoic membrane assay. Method Mol Biol. 2015;1207:305–315.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• National Institute of Health. The public health service responds to commonly asked questions. Cited Jan 5, 2021. https://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/references/ilar91.htm.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell MLH, Mellor DJ, Sandoe P. How should the welfare of fetal and neurologically immature postnatal animals be protected? Anim Welf. 2014;23(4):369–379.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Parliament. Directive 2010/63/EU of the European parliament and of the council of 22 September 2010 on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes. Official J, 2010, L276, 33–79. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/DE/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32010L0063&from=en (accessed on Jan 13, 2021).
   Google Scholar
• Hamburger V, Hamilton HLA. Series of normal stages in the development of the chick embryo. J Morphol. 1951;88(3):49–92.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Burt DW. Chicken genome: current status and future opportunities. Genome Res. 2005;15(12):1692–1698.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• International Chicken Genome Sequencing Consortium. Sequence and comparative analysis of the chicken genome provide unique perspectives on vertebrate evolution. Nature. 2004;432(7018): 695–716.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kleibeuker EA, Ten Hooven MA, Castricum KC, et al. Optimal treatment scheduling of ionizing radiation and sunitinib improves the antitumor activity and allows dose reduction. Cancer Med. 2015;4(7):1003–1015.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kue CS, Tan KY, Lam ML, et al. Chick embryo Chorioallantoic Membrane (CAM): an alternative predictive model in acute toxicological studies for anti-cancer drugs. Exp Anim. 2014;64(2):129–138.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rous P, Murphy JB. Tumor implantations in the developing embryo. J Am Med Assoc. 1911;LVI(10):741.
   Google Scholar
• Liu K, Holz JA, Ding Y, et al. Targeted labeling of an early-stage tumor spheroid in a chorioallantoic membrane model with upconversion nanoparticles. Nanoscale. 2015;7(5):1596–1600.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeBord LC, Pathak RR, Villaneuva M, et al. The chick Chorioallantoic Membrane (CAM) as a versatile Patient-Derived Xenograft (PDX) platform for precision medicine and preclinical research. Am J Cancer Res. 1642–1660;2018(8):8.
   Google Scholar
• Kunz P, Schenker A, Sähr H, et al. Optimization of the chicken chorioallantoic membrane assay as reliable in vivo model for the analysis of osteosarcoma. PLoS One. 2019;14(4):1–16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wittig R, Rosenholm JM, von Haartman E, et al. Active targeting of mesoporous silica drug carriers enhances γ-secretase inhibitor efficacy in an in vivo model for breast cancer. Nanomedicine. 2014;9(7):971–987.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bakhoum SF, Ngo B, Laughney AM, et al. Chromosomal instability drives metastasis through a cytosolic DNA response. Nature. 2018;553(7689):467–472.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bakhoum SF, Compton DA, Instability C. Cancer: a complex relationship with therapeutic potential. J Clin Invest. 2012;122(4):1138–1143.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shlien A, Malkin D. Copy number variations and cancer. Genome Med. 2009;1(6):1–9.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pantel K, Brakenhoff RH. Dissecting the metastatic cascade. Nat Rev Cancer. 2004;4(6):448–456.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Zijl F, Krupitza G, Mikulits W. Initial steps of metastasis: cell invasion and endothelial transmigration. Mutat Res - Rev Mutat Res. 2011;728(1–2):23–34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mierke CT. The matrix environmental and cell mechanical properties regulate cell migration and contribute to the invasive phenotype of cancer cells. Reports Prog Phys. 2019;82(6):6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim J, Yu W, Kovalski K, et al. Requirement for specific proteases in cancer cell intravasation as revealed by a novel semiquantitative PCR-based assay. Cell. 1998;94(3):353–362.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zijlstra A, Mellor R, Panzarella G, et al. Analysis of rate-limiting steps in the metastatic cascade using human-specific real-time polymerase chain reaction. Cancer Res. 2002;62(23):7083–7092.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koop S, Schmidt EE, Macdonald IC, et al. Independence of metastatic ability and extravasation: metastatic Ras-transformed and control fibroblasts extravasate equally well. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996;93(20):11080–11084.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bayless KJ, Johnson GA. Role of the cytoskeleton in formation and maintenance of angiogenic sprouts. J Vasc Res. 2011;48(5):369–385.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patel-Hett S, D’Amore PA. Signal transduction in vasculogenesis and developmental angiogenesis. Int J Dev Biol. 2011;55(4–5):353–363.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tonini T, Rossi F, Claudio PP. Molecular basis of angiogenesis and cancer. Oncogene. 2003;22(43):6549–6556.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Deryugina EI, Quigley JP. Chick embryo chorioallantoic membrane models to quantify angiogenesis induced by inflammatory and tumor cells or purified effector molecules. Methods Enzymol. 2008;444:21–41.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knighton D, Ausprunk D, Tapper D, et al. Vascular phases of tumour growth in the chick embryo. Br J Cancer. 1977;35(3):347–356.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nagy J, Chang S-H, Shih S-C, et al. Heterogeneity of the Tumor Vasculature. Semin Thromb Hemost. 2010;36(3):321–331.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deryugina EI. Chorioallantoic membrane microtumor model to study the mechanisms of tumor angiogenesis, vascular permeability, and tumor cell intravasation. In: Martin S, Hewett P, editors. In Angiogenesis Protocol. Vol. 1430. Human Press: New York, NY; 2016. p. 283–298.
   Google Scholar
• Benazzi C, Al-Dissi A, Chau CH, et al. Angiogenesis in spontaneous tumors and implications for comparative tumor biology. Sci World J. 2014;2014:1–16.
   Google Scholar
• Fergelot P, Bernhard JC, Soulet F, et al. The experimental renal cell carcinoma model in the chick embryo. Angiogenesis. 2013;16(1):181–194.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baum O, Suter F, Gerber B, et al. Angiogenesis in the developing chicken chorioallantoic membrane. Microcirculation. 2010;17(6):447–457.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marinaccio C, Nico B, Ribatti D. Differential expression of angiogenic and anti-angiogenic molecules in the chick embryo chorioallantoic membrane and selected organs during embryonic development. Int J Dev Biol. 2013;57(11–12):907–916.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plate KH, Breier G, Millauer B, et al. Up-regulation of vascular endothelial growth factor and its cognate receptors in a rat glioma model of tumor angiogenesis. Cancer Res. 1993;53(23):5822–5827.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petruzzelli GJ, Johnson JT, Snyderman CH, et al. Angiogenesis induced by head and neck squamous cell carcinoma xenografts in the chick embryo chorioallantoic membrane model. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1993;102(3):215–221.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Subauste MC, Kupriyanova TA, Conn EM, et al. Evaluation of metastatic and angiogenic potentials of human colon carcinoma cells in chick embryo model systems. Clin Exp Metastasis. 2009;26(8):1033–1047.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sys G, Van Bockstal M, Forsyth R, et al. Tumor grafts derived from sarcoma patients retain tumor morphology, viability, and invasion potential and indicate disease outcomes in the chick chorioallantoic membrane model. Cancer Lett. 2012;326(1):69–78.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klagsbrun M, Knighton D, Folkman J. Tumor angiogenesis activity in cells grown in tissue culture. Cancer Res. 1976;36(1):110–114.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moscatelli D, Joseph-Silverstein J, Presta M, et al. Multiple forms of an angiogenesis factor: basic fibroblast growth factor. Biochimie. 1987;70(1):83–87.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brem S, Cotran R, Tumor Angiogenesis FJ, et al. Method for histologic grading. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1972;48(2):347–356.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mostafa LK, Jones DB, Wright DH. Mechanism of the induction of angiogenesis by human neoplastic lymphoid tissue: studies on the Chorioallantoic Membrane (CAM) of the chick embryo. J Pathol. 1980;132(3):191–205.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Su SC, Lin CW, Yang WE, et al. The Urokinase-type Plasminogen Activator (UPA) system as a biomarker and therapeutic target in human malignancies. Expert Opin Ther Targets. 2016;20(5):551–566.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dass K, Ahmad A, Azmi AS, et al. Evolving role of UPA/UPAR system in human cancers. Cancer Treat Rev. 2008;34(2):122–136.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deryugina EI, Kiosses WB. Intratumoral cancer cell intravasation can occur independent of invasion into the adjacent stroma. Cell Rep. 2017;19(3):601–616.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deryugina EI, Zijlstra A, Partridge JJ, et al. Unexpected effect of matrix metalloproteinase down-regulation on vascular intravasation and metastasis of human fibrosarcoma cells selected in vivo for high rates of dissemination. Cancer Res. 2005;65(23):10959–10969.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zuo Z, Syrovets T, Genze F, et al. MRI analysis of breast cancer xenograft on the chick chorioallantoic membrane. NMR Biomed. 2015;28(4):440–447.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shanmugam MK, Ahn KS, Hsu A, et al. Thymoquinone inhibits bone metastasis of breast cancer cells through abrogation of the CXCR4 signaling axis. Front Pharmacol. 2018;9. DOI:10.3389/fphar.2018.01294.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yousefnia S, Ghaedi K, Seyed Forootan F, et al. Characterization of the stemness potency of mammospheres isolated from the breast cancer cell lines. Tumor Biol. 2019;41:8.
   Google Scholar
• Li Q, Cao J, He Y, et al. R5, a neutralizing antibody to robo1, suppresses breast cancer growth and metastasis by inhibiting angiogenesis via down-regulating filamin A. Exp Cell Res. 2020;387(1):111756.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eder S, Arndt A, Lamkowski A, et al. Baseline MAPK signaling activity confers intrinsic radioresistance to KRAS-mutant colorectal carcinoma cells by rapid upregulation of heterogeneous nuclear ribonucleoprotein K (HnRNP K). Cancer Lett. 2017;385:160–167.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dumartin L, Quemener C, Laklai H, et al. Netrin-1 mediates early events in pancreatic adenocarcinoma progression, acting on tumor and endothelial cells. Gastroenterology. 2010;137(4):1595–1606.
   Google Scholar
• Mesci A, Lucien F, Huang X, et al. RSPO3 is a prognostic biomarker and mediator of invasiveness in prostate cancer. J Transl Med. 2019;17(1):125.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hagedorn M, Javerzat S, Gilges D, et al. Accessing key steps of human tumor progression in vivo by using an avian embryo model. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102(5):1643–1648.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swadi R, Mather G, Pizer BL, et al. Optimising the chick chorioallantoic membrane xenograft model of neuroblastoma for drug delivery. BMC Cancer. 2018;18(1):28.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Klingenberg M, Becker J, Eberth S, et al. The chick chorioallantoic membrane as an in vivo xenograft model for burkitt lymphoma. BMC Cancer. 2014;14(1):339.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Xiao X, Zhou X, Ming H, et al. Chick chorioallantoic membrane assay: a 3D animal model for study of human nasopharyngeal carcinoma. PLoS One. 2015;10(6):1–13.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schneider-Stock R, Ribatti D. The CAM assay as an alternative in vivo model for drug testing. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2020:1–21. DOI:10.1007/164_2020_375.
   Google Scholar
• Leng T, Miller JM, V; Palanker BK, et al. Chorioallantoic membrane as a model tissue for surgical retinal research and simulation. Retina. 2004;24(3):427–434.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jefferies B, Lenze F, Sathe A, et al. Imaging of engineered human tumors in the living chicken embryo. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):1–9.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Winter G, Koch ABF, Löffler J, et al. Vivo PET/MRI imaging of the chorioallantoic membrane. Front Phys. 2020;8. DOI:10.3389/fphy.2020.00151.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warnock G, Turtoi A, Blomme A, et al. Vivo PET/CT in a human glioblastoma chicken chorioallantoic membrane model: a new tool for oncology and radiotracer development. J Nucl Med. 2013;54(10):1782–1788.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winter G, Koch ABF, Loffler J, et al. PET and MR imaging in the Hen’s Egg Test-Chorioallantoic Membrane (HET-CAM) model for initial in vivo testing of target-specific radioligands. Cancers (Basel). 2020;12(5):5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waschkies C, Nicholls F, Buschmann J. Comparison of medetomidine, thiopental and ketamine/midazolam anesthesia in chick embryos for in ovo magnetic resonance imaging free of motion artifacts. Sci Rep. 2015;5(1):15536.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lin B, Song X, Yang D, et al. Anlotinib inhibits angiogenesis via suppressing the activation of VEGFR2, PDGFRbeta and FGFR1. Gene. 2018;654:77–86.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhong L, Guo X-N, Zhang X-H, et al. TKI-31 inhibits angiogenesis by combined suppression signaling pathway of VEGFR2 and PDGFRbeta. Cancer Biol Ther. 2014;5(3):323–330.
   Google Scholar
• Sunitinib MC. Resistance in Renal Cell Carcinoma. J Kidney Cancer VHL. 2014;1(1):1.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mulet-Margalef N, Garcia-Del-Muro X. Sunitinib in the treatment of gastrointestinal stromal tumor: patient selection and perspectives. Onco Targets Ther. 2016;9:7573–7582.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pozas M, San Roman M, Alonso-Gordoa T, et al. Angiogenesis in pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: resistance mechanisms. Int J Mol Sci. 2019;20(19):19.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D’Costa NM, Lowerison MR, Raven PA, et al. Y-box binding protein-1 is crucial in acquired drug resistance development in metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2020;39(1):33.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cîmpean AM, Lalošević D, Lalošević V, et al. Disodium cromolyn and anti-podoplanin antibodies strongly inhibit growth of BHK 21/C13-derived fibrosarcoma in a chick embryo chorioallantoic membrane model. In Vivo (Brooklyn). 2018;32(4):791–798.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferician O, Cimpean AM, Avram S, et al. Endostatin effects on tumor cells and vascular network of human renal cell carcinoma implanted on chick embryo chorioallantoic membrane. Anticancer Res. 2015;35(12):6521–6528.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Venkatesulu BP, Mahadevan LS, Aliru ML, et al. Vascular injury: a review of possible mechanisms. JACC Basic Transl Sci. 2018;3(4):563–572.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Baselet B, Sonveaux P, Baatout S, et al. Pathological effects of ionizing radiation: endothelial activation and dysfunction. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2019;76(4):699–728.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharma RA, Plummer R, Stock JK, et al. Clinical development of new drug-radiotherapy combinations. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2016;13(10):627–642.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahl O, Dale JE, Brydoy M. Rationale for combination of radiation therapy and immune checkpoint blockers to improve cancer treatment. Acta Oncol. 2019;58(1):9–20.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yuan YJ, Xu K, Wu W, et al. Application of the chick embryo chorioallantoic membrane in neurosurgery disease. Int J Med Sci. 2014;11(12):1275–1281.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kähler J, Hafner S, Popp T, et al. Heterogeneous nuclear ribonucleoprotein K is overexpressed and contributes to radioresistance irrespective of HPV status in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Int J Mol Med. 2020;46(5):1733–1742.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abe C, Uto Y, Nakae T, et al. Evaluation of the in vivo radiosensitizing activity of etanidazole using tumor-bearing chick embryo. J Radiat Res. 2011;52(2):208–214.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dörr W. Pathogenesis of normal tissue side effects. In: Joiner MC, Van der Kogel AJ, editors. Basic clinical radiobiology. Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, FL; 2018. pp. 152–170.
   Google Scholar
• Karnabatidis D, Dimopoulos JCA, Siablis D, et al. Quantification of the ionising radiation effect over angiogenesis in the chick embryo and its chorioallantoic membrane by computerised analysis of angiographic images. Acta Radiol. 2001;42(3):333–338.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sabatasso S, Laissue JA, Hlushchuk R, et al. Tissue damage depends on the stage of vascular maturation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;80(5):1522–1532.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marques FG, Poli E, Rino J, et al. Low doses of ionizing radiation enhance the angiogenic potential of adipocyte conditioned medium. Radiat Res. 2019;192(5):517–526.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kardamakis D, Hadjimichael C, Ginopoulos P, et al. Effects of paclitaxel in combination with ionizing radiation on angiogenesis in the chick embryo chorioallantoic membrane. a radiobiological study. Strahlenther Onkol. 2004;180(3):152–156.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahvi DA, Liu R, Grinstaff MW, et al. Local cancer recurrence: the realities, challenges, and opportunities for new therapies. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(6):488–505.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bobo D, Robinson KJ, Islam J, et al. Nanoparticle-based medicines: a review of FDA-approved materials and clinical trials to date. Pharm Res. 2016;33(10):2373–2387.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cassano D, Pocoví-Martínez S, Ultrasmall-in-Nano Approach VV. Enabling the translation of metal nanomaterials to clinics. Bioconjug Chem. 2018;29(1):4–16.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blanco E, Shen H, Ferrari M. Principles of nanoparticle design for overcoming biological barriers to drug delivery. Nat Biotechnol. 2015;33(9):941–951.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bouchoucha M, Côté MF, Gaudreault C, et al. Mesoporous silica nanoparticles for tunable drug release and enhanced anti-tumoral activity. Chem Mater. 2016;28(12):4243–4258.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yildiz I, Shukla S, Steinmetz NF. Applications of viral nanoparticles in medicine. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2011;22(6):901–908.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shukla S, Ablack AL, Wen AM, et al. Increased tumor homing and tissue penetration of the filamentous plant viral nanoparticle potato virus X. Mol Pharm. 2013;10(1):33–42.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cho CF, Ablack A, Leong HS, et al. Evaluation of nanoparticle uptake in tumors in real time using intravital imaging. J Vis Exp. 2011;No. 52:7–11. DOI:10.3791/2808.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suk JS, Xu Q, Kim N, et al. PEGylation as a strategy for improving nanoparticle-based drug and gene delivery. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2016;99:28–51.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tenzer S, Docter D, Kuharev J, et al. Rapid formation of plasma protein corona critically affects nanoparticle pathophysiology. Nat Nanotechnol. 2013;8(10):772–781.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lunov O, Syrovets T, Loos C, et al. Differential uptake of functionalized polystyrene nanoparticles by human macrophages and a monocytic cell line. ACS Nano. 2011;5(3):1657–1669.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loos C, Syrovets T, Musyanovych A, et al. Nanoparticles as Inhibitors of MTOR and inducers of cell cycle arrest in leukemia cells. Biomaterials. 2014;35(6):1944–1953.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Medinger M, Passweg J. Angiogenesis in myeloproliferative neoplasms, new markers and future directions Memo - Mag. Eur Med Oncol. 2014;7(4):206–210.
   Google Scholar
• Han Y, Wang X, Wang B, et al. The Progress of Angiogenic Factors in the Development of Leukemias. Intractable Rare Dis Res. 2016;5(1):6–16.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bazak R, Houri M, El Achy S, et al. Cancer active targeting by nanoparticles: a comprehensive review of literature. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2015;141(5):769–784.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen Y, Tezcan O, Li D, et al. Overcoming multidrug resistance using folate receptor-targeted and PH-responsive polymeric nanogels containing covalently entrapped doxorubicin. Nanoscale. 2017;9(29):10404–10419.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steinmetz NF, Ablack AL, Hickey JL, et al.,Intravital imaging of human prostate cancer using viral nanoparticles targeted to gastrin-releasing peptide receptors, Small, 2011; 7 ;12, 1664–1672.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Niemelä E, Desai D, Niemi R, et al. Nanoparticles carrying fingolimod and methotrexate enables targeted induction of apoptosis and immobilization of invasive thyroid cancer. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. Dec 2019;2020(148):1–9.
   Google Scholar
• Rogosnitzky M, Branch S. Gadolinium-based contrast agent toxicity: a review of known and proposed mechanisms. BioMetals. 2016;29(3):365–376.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zuo Z, Syrovets T, Wu Y, et al. The CAM cancer xenograft as a model for initial evaluation of MR labelled compounds. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):46690.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Faucher L, Guay-Bégin AA, Lagueux J, et al. Ultra-small gadolinium oxide nanoparticles to image brain cancer cells in vivo with MRI. Contrast Media Mol Imaging. 2011;6(4):209–218.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corem-Salkmon E, Perlstein B, Margel S. Design of near-infrared fluorescent bioactive conjugated functional iron oxide nanoparticles for optical detection of colon cancer. Int J Nanomedicine. 2012;7:5517–5527.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jendželovská Z, Jendželovský R, Kuchárová B, et al. Hypericin in the light and in the dark: two sides of the same coin. Front Plant Sci. 2016;7:1–20.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zeisser-Labouèbe M, Delie F, Gurny D, et al. Screening of nanoparticulate delivery systems for the photodetection of cancer in a simple and cost-effective model. Nanomedicine. 2009;4(2):135–143.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Voliani V, González-Béjar M, Herranz-Pérez V, et al. Orthogonal functionalisation of upconverting NaYF4 nanocrystals. Chem Eur J. 2013;19(40):13538–13546.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang M, Abbineni G, Clevenger A, et al. Upconversion nanoparticles: synthesis, surface modification and biological applications. Nanomed Nanotechnol Biol Med. 2011;7(6):710–729.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grodzik M, Sawosz E, Wierzbicki M, et al. Nanoparticles of carbon allotropes inhibit glioblastoma multiforme angiogenesis in ovo. Int J Nanomedicine. 2011;6:3041.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Urbańska K, Pająk B, Orzechowski A, et al. The effect of silver nanoparticles (AgNPs) on proliferation and apoptosis of in ovo cultured Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM) cells. Nanoscale Res Lett. 2015;10(1):1.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kutwin M, Sawosz E, Jaworski S, et al. Investigation of platinum nanoparticle properties against U87 glioblastoma multiforme. Arch Med Sci. 2017;13(6):1322–1334.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu LZ, Ding M, Zheng JZ, et al. Tungsten carbide-cobalt nanoparticles induce reactive oxygen species, AKT, ERK, AP-1, NF-ΚB, VEGF, and Angiogenesis. Biol Trace Elem Res. 2015;166(1):57–65.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vargas A, Pegaz B, Debefve E, et al. Improved photodynamic activity of porphyrin loaded into nanoparticles: an in vivo evaluation using chick embryos. Int J Pharm. 2004;286(1–2):131–145.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cassano D, Santi M, Cappello V, et al. Biodegradable passion fruit-like nano-architectures as carriers for cisplatin prodrug part. Part Syst Charact. 2016;33(11):818–824.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mapanao AK, Santi M, Faraci P, et al. Endogenously-triggerable ultrasmall-in-nano architectures: targeting assessment on 3D pancreatic carcinoma spheroids. ACS Omega. 2018;3(9):11796–11801.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bikhezar F, de Kruijff RM, van der Meer AJGM, et al. Preclinical evaluation of binimetinib (MEK162) delivered via polymeric nanocarriers in combination with radiation and temozolomide in glioma. J Neurooncol. 2020;146(2):239–246.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barenholz Y. (Chezy). Doxil® — the first FDA-approved nano-drug: lessons learned. J Control Release. 2012;160(2):117–134.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vu BT, Shahin SA, Croissant J, et al. Chick chorioallantoic membrane assay as an in vivo model to study the effect of nanoparticle-based anticancer drugs in ovarian cancer. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):8524.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Yalcin M, Bharali DJ, Lansing L, Dyskin E, Mousa SS, Hercbergs A, Davis FB, Davis PJ, Mousa SA. Tetraidothyroacetic acid (Tetrac) and tetrac nanoparticles inhibit growth of human renal cell carcinoma xenografts. Anticancer Res. 2009;29(10):3825–3831.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paris JL, Villaverde G, Gómez-Graña S, et al. Nanoparticles for multimodal antivascular therapeutics: dual drug release, photothermal and photodynamic therapy. Acta Biomater. 2020;101:459–468.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elsadek B, Kratz F. Impact of albumin on drug delivery - new applications on the horizon. J Control Release. 2012;157(1):4–28.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hafner S, Raabe M, Wu Y, et al. Resonance imaging and efficient delivery of an albumin nanotheranostic in triple‐Negative breast cancer xenografts. Adv Ther. 2019;2(11):1900084.
   Google Scholar
• Garrier J, Reshetov V, Gräfe S, et al. Factors affecting the selectivity of nanoparticle-based photoinduced damage in free and xenografted chorioallantoic membrane model. J Drug Target. 2014;22(3):220–231.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riley II M, Vermerris W. Recent advances in nanomaterials for gene delivery—A review. Nanomaterials. 2017;7(5):94.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Masjedi A, Ahmadi A, Atyabi F, et al. Silencing of IL-6 and STAT3 by SiRNA loaded hyaluronate-N,N,N-trimethyl chitosan nanoparticles potently reduces cancer cell progression. Int J Biol Macromol. 2020;149:487–500.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kilarski WW, Samolov B, Petersson L, et al. Biomechanical regulation of blood vessel growth during tissue vascularization. Nat Med. 2009;15(6):657–664.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zudaire E, Gambardella L, Kurcz C, et al. Tool for quantitative analysis of vascular networks. PLoS One. 2011;6(11):1–12.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ribatti D, Nico B, Perra MT, et al. Erythropoietin is involved in angiogenesis in human primary melanoma. Int J Exp Pathol. 2010;91(6):495–499.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beckers M, Gladis-Villanueva M, Hamann W, et al. Use of the chorio-allantoic membrane of the chick embryo as test for anti-inflammatory activity. Inflamm Res. 1997;46(1):29–30.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stephens DJ, Allan VJ. Light microscopy techniques for live cell imaging. 80 Science. 2003;300(5616):82–86.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pink DBS, Schulte W, Parseghian MH, et al. Quantitation of vascular permeability in vivo: implications for drug delivery. PLoS One. 2012;7(3):1–10.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jilani SM, Murphy TJ, Thai SNM, et al. Selective binding of lectins to embryonic chicken vasculature. J Histochem Cytochem. 2003;51(5):597–604.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vargas A, Eid M, Fanchaouy M, et al. In vivo photodynamic activity of photosensitizer-loaded nanoparticles: formulation properties, administration parameters and biological issues involved in PDT outcome. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2008;69(1):43–53.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mamaeva V, Niemi R, Beck M, et al. Inhibiting notch activity in breast cancer stem cells by glucose functionalized nanoparticles carrying γ-secretase inhibitors. Mol Ther. 2016;24(5):926–936.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nowak-Sliwinska P, Alitalo K, Allen E, et al., Consensus guidelines for the use and interpretation of angiogenesis assays, Angiogenesis 2018:Vol. 21, DOI:10.1007/s10456-018-9613-x.
   Google Scholar
• Leong HS, Steinmetz NF, Ablack A, et al. Intravital imaging of embryonic and tumor neovasculature using viral nanoparticles. Nat Protoc. 2010;5(8):1406–1417.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jonkman J, Brown CM. Any way you slice it—A comparison of confocal microscopy techniques. J Biomol Tech. 2015;26(2):54–65.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• MacDonald IC, Schmidt EE, Morris VL, et al. Intravital videomicroscopy of the chorioallantoic microcirculation: a model system for studying metastasis. Microvasc Res. 1992;44(2):185–199.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilcox JN. Fundamental principles of in situ hybridization. J Histochem Cytochem. 1993;41(12):1725–1733.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Javerzat S, Franco M, Herbert J, et al. Correlating global gene regulation to angiogenesis in the developing chick extra-embryonic vascular system. PLoS One. 2009;4(11):11.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deininger PL, Batzer MA. Alu repeats and human disease. Mol Genet Metab. 1999;67(3):183–193.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wierzbicki M, Sawosz E, Grodzik M, et al. Comparison of anti-angiogenic properties of pristine carbon nanoparticles. Nanoscale Res Lett. 2013;8(1):1–8.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Deryugina EI, Bourdon MA, Reisfeld RA, et al. Remodeling of collagen matrix by human tumor cells requires activation and cell surface association of matrix metalloproteinase-2. Cancer Res. 1998;58(16):3743–3750.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Büchele B, Zugmaier W, Genze F, et al. High-performance liquid chromatographic determination of acetyl-11-Keto-α-boswellic acid, a novel pentacyclic triterpenoid, in plasma using a fluorinated stationary phase and photodiode array detection: application in pharmacokinetic studies. J Chromatogr B Anal Technol Biomed Life Sci. 2005;829(1–2):144–148.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Honda N, Kariyama Y, Hazama H, et al. Optical properties of tumor tissues grown on the chorioallantoic membrane of chicken eggs: tumor model to assay of tumor response to photodynamic therapy. J Biomed Opt. 2015;20(12):125001.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fotinos N, Campo MA, Popowycz F, et al. 5-aminolevulinic acid derivatives in photomedicine: characteristics, application and perspectives. Photochem Photobiol. 2006;82(4):994.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DuFort CC, DelGiorno KE, Hingorani SR. Mounting pressure in the microenvironment: fluids, solids, and cells in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Gastroenterology. 2016;150(7):1545–1557 e2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schnittert J, Bansal R, Prakash J. Targeting pancreatic stellate cells in cancer. Trends Cancer. 2019;5(2):128–142.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soulet F, Kilarski WW, Roux-Dalvai F, et al. Mapping the extracellular and membrane proteome associated with the vasculature and the stroma in the embryo. Mol Cell Proteomics. 2013;12(8):2293–2312.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giannopoulou E, Katsoris P, Hatziapostolou M, et al. Extracellular matrix in vivo. Int J Cancer. 2001;94(5):690–698.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Papadimitriou E, Unsworth BR, Maragoudakis ME, et al. Quantification of extracellular matrix maturation in the chick chorioallantoic membrane and in cultured endothelial cells. Endothelium. 1993;1(3):207–219.
   Google Scholar
• Sahai E, Astsaturov I, Cukierman E, et al. A framework for advancing our understanding of cancer-associated fibroblasts. Nat Rev Cancer. 2020;20(3):174–186.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schneiderhan W, Diaz F, Fundel M, et al. Pancreatic stellate cells are an important source of MMP-2 in human pancreatic cancer and accelerate tumor progression in a murine xenograft model and CAM assay. J Cell Sci. 2007;120(Pt 3):512–519.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chojnacka-Puchta L, Sawicka D CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing in a chicken model: current approaches and applications. Journal of Applied Genetics. 2020;61:221–229. DOI:10.1007/s13353-020-00537-9.
   Google Scholar
• Sid H, Schusser B Applications of gene editing in chickens: a new era is on the horizon. Frontiers in Genetics. 2018;9:456. DOI:10.3389/fgene.2018.00456.
   Google Scholar