Skip to main content
Fig. 6 | Journal of Experimental & Clinical Cancer Research

Fig. 6

From: Mesothelioma-associated fibroblasts enhance proliferation and migration of pleural mesothelioma cells via c-Met/PI3K and WNT signaling but do not protect against cisplatin

Fig. 6

Meso-CAFs do not protect PM cells against cisplatin. GFP+ SPC212 (A) or GFP+ MSTO-211H (B) were cultured as monolayers in the absence of CAFs (−CAF) or in the presence of Meso109F (+109F) or Meso125F (+125F) and treated with 1, 3 or 10 μM cisplatin or vehicle (DMSO). Micrographs were taken after 72 h and numbers of GFP+ tumor cells (TC) were determined by automated image analysis. GFP+ SPC212 (C) and GFP+ MSTO-211H (D) were cultured in 3D collagen gels in the absence of CAFs (−CAF) or in the presence of Meso109F (+109F) or Meso125F (+125F) and treated with 3 or 10 μM cisplatin or vehicle. Micrographs were taken after 72 h and numbers of GFP+ tumor cells (TC) were determined by automated image analysis. GFP+ SPC212 (E) or GFP+ MSTO-211H (F) were cultured as monolayers in the absence of CAFs (−CAF) or in the presence of Meso109F (+109F) or Meso125F (+125F) and treated with 0.3, 1, 3 or 10 μM pemetrexed (Pem), the combination of 1 μM cisplatin (Cis) with pemetrexed (10 μM for SPC212, 1 μM for MSTO-211H) or vehicle (DMSO). Micrographs were taken after 72 h and numbers of GFP+ tumor cells (TC) were determined by automated image analysis. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001 drug treated versus vehicle treated, #p < 0.05, ##p < 0.01, ###p < 0.001 growth in presence of Meso-CAFs versus growth in absence of Meso-CAFs, ° p < 0.05, °° p < 0.01 percent inhibition in presence of Meso-CAFs versus percent inhibition in absence of Meso-CAFs, one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s multiple comparisons test

Back to article page