Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 68 references

Tumour Induced Angiogenesis and Its Simulation

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A simple cellular automaton whose sprout tips follow a weighted chemotaxis-haptotaxis-random-motility rule reproduces tumour-induced sprouting angiogenesis in a 3-D grid.

desk verdict A competent but unoriginal review wrapped around a CA model that, as written, cannot be run or verified because key parameters are missing and the geometry is self-contradictory. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.02462 v1 pith:NYXNAUYW submitted 2019-09-05 physics.bio-ph physics.med-phq-bio.TO

Sounak Sadhukhan , S. K. Basu This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.bio-phphysics.med-phq-bio.TO
keywords hypoxiatumourangiogenicfactorsbloodvesselsmetastasiscellularautomatasproutingangiogenesischemotaxisanastomosis
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper's central claim is that a minimal cellular automaton can exhibit tumour-induced sprouting angiogenesis: hypoxic tumour cells emit diffusible factors, nearby blood vessels form sprouts, and the sprouts migrate, branch, and fuse into loops as they approach the tumour. A sympathetic reader should care because it suggests that the visible qualitative architecture of tumour vascular networks does not require modelling blood flow, oxygen transport, or whole-cell signalling; local update rules for factor diffusion and tip steering may be enough. The authors support this with a review of hypoxia, angiogenic factors, and metastasis, and then with a MATLAB simulation of their cellular automaton on a 2 mm cube. If the model is right, it offers a cheap computational sandbox for exploring how changes in factor weights or extracellular-matrix remodelling alter the shape of the resulting capillary network.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the sprout-tip steering rule, Eq. (8). At each time step the tip chooses the neighbouring grid site with the largest value of $\psi_{i,j,k}^n = (\mu_1 V + \mu_2 F + \mu_3 P + \mu_4 A) + w_2 e f + w_3 p d$, where $V$, $F$, $P$, $A$ are the four tumour-angiogenic-factor concentrations, $e f$ couples endothelial cells to fibronectin (haptotaxis), and $p d$ is a random term weighted by inverse distance to the tumour (random motility). The surrounding equations feed this rule by advancing the diffusing factor fields, fibronectin, MMPs, and extracellular matrix, so the entire simulated network morphology is a consequence of repeated local applications of this one maximization.

What would settle it

Run the cellular automaton many times with $w_2 = 0$ and with $w_2$ at its published value, and measure branch density and anastomosis count as a function of distance from the tumour centre: the paper reports no significant change when haptotaxis is removed and increasing branching near the tumour, so observing a large difference or no spatial gradient in branch density under repeated random seeds would falsify those claims. A stricter test is to compare the simulated sprout-tip paths against time-lapse microscopy of endothelial sprouts in a defined VEGF gradient.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the cellular automaton defined by Eqs. (1)-(9) reproduces tumour-induced sprouting angiogenesis in three spatial dimensions: capillary sprouts emerge from straight parent vessels, migrate toward the tumour because Eq. (8) steers each tip toward the site with maximal $\psi$, branch more frequently as they approach the tumour, and form loops by von Neumann-neighbour anastomosis. Running the simulation to day 20 produces a qualitative vascular network, and the paper reports that chemotaxis is the dominant steering force, with haptotaxis appearing to have little visible effect.

Load-bearing premise

The entire network depends on Eq. (8)'s hand-built steering rule: each sprout tip moves to the neighbouring site with maximum $\psi$, a weighted sum of chemotaxis, haptotaxis, and random motility, with weights and $\mu$ values set by hand rather than measured; if that rule does not match real endothelial-cell decision-making, the simulated networks are not biologically meaningful.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The model demonstrates that a 3-D cellular automaton with local rules can generate the qualitative features of tumour-induced angiogenesis, so more expensive hybrid simulations are not needed for every exploratory question about network shape.
  • Because the paper reports that chemotaxis alone ($w_2 = 0$) produces essentially the same network, the model predicts haptotaxis is not a limiting factor for sprout migration under the simulated conditions.
  • The observed increase in branching as sprouts approach the tumour gives a concrete, testable model prediction: branch density should rise near the tumour boundary.
  • Anastomosis is implemented purely as a local probabilistic event between adjacent sprout tips, so the model makes the testable claim that loop formation does not require long-range signalling.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Inference: Outside the paper, the same steering equation could be calibrated to quantitative experiments, fitting $\mu_1,\dots,\mu_4,w_2,w_3$ to time-lapse images of sprouting assays to convert a qualitative demonstration into a predictive model of network density and invasion speed.
  • Inference: The form of Eq. (8) suggests a continuum limit in which the tip performs a biased random walk with drift proportional to $\nabla \psi$; making that reduction explicit would connect this cellular automaton to established PDE models and allow analytical predictions of when branching versus anastomosis dominates.
  • Inference: A testable extension the authors did not run is to vary the tumour radius or TAF diffusion coefficients and record the time to first anastomosis; the model would predict a monotone relationship if diffusion limits sprout encounters, which could be checked against experiments that manipulate matrix stiffness or VEGF dose.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reviews the biology of tumour-induced angiogenesis—hypoxia, HIF signalling, pro- and anti-angiogenic factors, and metastasis—and then proposes a three-dimensional cellular automaton model of sprouting angiogenesis. The model evolves concentrations of VEGF, FGF, PDGF, ANG, fibronectin, MMPs, and ECM, with endothelial sprout tips moving according to a score combining chemotaxis, haptotaxis, and a stochastic term. The authors simulate capillary network formation over 20 days and report qualitative observations about sprout spacing, branching, and the relative importance of chemotaxis. They conclude that the model 'justifies the practical scenario' of tumour-induced angiogenesis.

Significance. If the model were fully specified, reproducible, and shown to capture the qualitative features of sprouting angiogenesis, it would be a useful minimal demonstration for teaching or exploratory purposes; the accompanying biological review is broad but not novel. As written, however, the central demonstration is compromised: the key update rule contains an omitted coefficient and undefined parameters, the geometry of the tumour and vessel placement is internally inconsistent, and the reported observations are not quantitatively supported. The contribution is therefore currently a review with an illustrative but non-reproducible simulation, rather than a validated modelling result.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 5.1, Eq. (8.1)] The tip-direction score ψ cannot be evaluated as written. The displayed formula is ψ = (μ1V + μ2F + μ3P + μ4A) + w2 e f + w3 p d, so there is no w1 coefficient on the chemotactic term, even though the text states that w1 through w3 are parameters and §5.2 assigns w1 = 0.30, w2 = 0.40, w3 = 0.30. Moreover, μ1 through μ4 are never assigned numerical values in §5.2. Since Eq. (8) is the only mechanism that moves sprout tips, every simulated network in Fig. 5 is indeterminate under the specification given.
  2. [Section 5.2, initial conditions and geometry] The stated geometry is internally inconsistent. The tumour centre is given as (0.5, 0, 0.5) with radius 0.5 in normalized units, which places the parent vessel segments at y = 0 and z = 0.2–0.8 inside the tumour volume, leaving no avascular gap for sprouting. In addition, Eq. (10) initializes TAF concentrations with maximum at y = 1, so the chemotactic gradient points toward y = 1 rather than toward the stated tumour centre. These two specifications determine the entire network pattern, and the figures in Fig. 5 therefore cannot be attributed unambiguously to the stated model.
  3. [Section 5.2, observations (a)–(c)] The qualitative observations reported after the simulation are not supported by data. There is no quantitative measure of 'branching tendency', no comparison of networks generated with different parameter sets, no statistical analysis across replicate runs, and no evidence that the claim 'no two capillary sprouts are generated from adjacent locations' is a model outcome rather than a property of the initialization. The statement that no significant changes are visible with w2 = 0 is particularly problematic because no such run is shown or quantified.
  4. [Section 5.1, Eq. (8.1) and interpretative labels] The term w3 p d is labelled 'random motility', but d is defined as the reciprocal of the distance to the tumour centre, making this a directed, tumour-seeking term. This mislabelling affects the conclusion in §5.2 that chemotaxis is the most effective driving force, because the separation between chemotaxis and the other contributions is not what the equations actually describe. The authors should rename or reformulate this term and re-examine the conclusions drawn from it.
  5. [Section 5 and Conclusions] The parameters α1–α8, ω1, ω2, γ1–γ3, λ, β, and τ are assigned by hand, and the resulting model is not calibrated against or compared with experimental data or the prior modelling results that the paper itself reviews (for example, Anderson and Chaplain 1998, Milde et al. 2008, Wcisło et al. 2009). Without such grounding or at least a sensitivity analysis, the conclusion that the model 'justifies the practical scenario' overstates what the simulation can establish.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 5.2] The parameter w1 is listed as 0.30 but does not appear in Eq. (8.1); the intended formula should be clarified, for example by stating explicitly whether w1 multiplies the chemotactic term.
  2. [Figure 5] The four panels lack axes, scale bars, colour legends, and a clear statement of the coordinate system, making it difficult to interpret the spatial extent and orientation of the simulated vascular networks.
  3. [General] The text contains numerous typographical errors, including 'definined', 'aniogenic', 'angiopoiteins', and 'thorombospondins', which should be corrected before resubmission.
  4. [Section 5.1, branching conditions] The condition that 'sufficient space should be available' for branching is not formalized; the authors should specify the exact occupancy criterion used in the update rule.
  5. [Section 5.2, observation (c)] The statement 'no significant changes visible with w2 = 0' should be replaced by a quantitative comparison, such as branch counts, total network length, or tip positions across replicate runs with different w2 values.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The claimed 'capture' of anastomosis and branching is the CA rule itself, so the central demonstration is partly circular; no fitted-data prediction or self-citation chain is involved.

  1. self definitional [Section 5.1 (CA rules for anastomosis and branching) and Section 6 (Conclusions)]
    "The rule of anastomosis and branching is not clearly known. So, for this simulation, we consider that anastomosis occurs if and only if two sprout tips are situated at the adjacent positions (von Neumann neighbo ur) of the grid and Pa is the chances of anastomoses. On the other hand, conditions for branching are as follows, i) The sprout tip should be mature (age ≥ ageth). ii) There should be sufficient space available for branching. iii) The probability for branching of a sprout tip is Pb. Capillary sprout branching can happen if and only if these three conditions are true simultaneously."

    The conclusion states 'The model also captures anastomoses and branching phenomena in capillary blood vessels.' But the simulation rule already stipulates that anastomosis occurs exactly when two sprout tips are von Neumann neighbours and branching occurs exactly when a mature tip has space and a Pb draw succeeds. The reported 'capture' is therefore the rule itself restated as an output, not an emergent behaviour derived from the CA dynamics. This is a definitional reduction of a claimed result to its input assumptions.

full rationale

The paper does not fit parameters to external data and then call them predictions, and it does not rely on a load-bearing self-citation chain, so those circularity modes are absent. The genuine circular step is narrower: the model's conclusion that it 'captures anastomoses and branching phenomena' restates the local rules in Section 5.1, where anastomosis and branching are defined to occur under exactly those adjacency, maturity, space, and probability conditions. The rest of the CA (coupled TAF, fibronectin, MMP, ECM, and EC updates) has independent algorithmic content, and the paper is transparent that the rules are assumptions. However, the simulation's headline demonstration of sprouting, branching, and anastomosis is largely built in via Eq. (8)'s tip-direction maximization over a TAF-weighted score and via the explicit anastomosis and branching rules, so a partial circularity score is warranted. Separate internal inconsistencies (Eq. (8.1) makes no use of w1, mu1-mu4 are never assigned numerical values, and the stated tumour centre at (0.5,0,0.5) with radius 50h contains the y=0 parent vessels) are correctness and reproducibility defects rather than circularity, but they reinforce that the claimed justification of the practical scenario is not established by the written model.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model rests on a large set of hand-chosen parameters and on simplifying biological assumptions whose validity is not demonstrated. No free parameter is fitted to data, but every parameter is chosen by the authors, and several are never given numerical values. The central simulation therefore does not have independent empirical grounding.

free parameters (10)
  • TAF dynamics rates alpha1-alpha8 = alpha1=0.001, alpha2=0.1, alpha3=0.001, alpha4=0.09, alpha5=0.001, alpha6=0.08, alpha7=0.001, alpha8=0.075
    Hand-set rates for diffusion and EC consumption of VEGF, FGF, PDGF and ANG; no calibration or sensitivity analysis.
  • Fibronectin rates omega1, omega2 = omega1=0.05, omega2=0.1
    Hand-set production and decay terms for fibronectin.
  • MMP and ECM rates gamma1, gamma2, gamma3, lambda = gamma1=0.01, gamma2=0.009, gamma3=0.0075, lambda=0.1
    Hand-set rates for MMP production, diffusion, and ECM degradation.
  • EC proliferation rate beta = 0.1
    Hand-set coefficient in the EC update rule.
  • Time step tau = 1 (2.4 h)
    Chosen temporal discretization with no convergence study.
  • Motility weights w1, w2, w3 = 0.30, 0.40, 0.30
    Weights for chemotaxis, haptotaxis and random motility; Eq. (8.1) omits w1 and no biological justification is given.
  • Initial profile parameters sigma1-sigma5, epsilon1-epsilon5 = sigma1=1.0, sigma2=0.95, sigma3=0.90, sigma4=0.85, sigma5=1.0; epsilon1=0.45, epsilon2=0.40, epsilon3=0.35…
    Hand-chosen amplitudes and widths of Gaussian initial TAF and fibronectin fields.
  • Anastomosis and branching probabilities Pa, Pb = not specified
    Required by the anastomosis and branching rules but no numerical values are given in the text.
  • Chemotactic sensitivities mu1-mu4 = not specified
    Coefficients for VEGF, FGF, PDGF and ANG in the sprout direction rule; described only as between 0 and 1, never assigned.
  • Sprout maturation age ageth = 10 tau (24 h)
    Threshold for branching, chosen by hand.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The tumour is treated as a static object; tumour cell dynamics, oxygen and nutrient dynamics, pericytes and anti-angiogenic factors are ignored.
    Stated at the start of Section 5 and Section 5.1 as simplification; the simulation's biological relevance depends on these omissions being unimportant.
  • domain assumption TAF diffusion can be represented by the average of Moore-neighbour concentrations with linear EC-consumption terms (Eqs. 1-4).
    This discrete diffusion model is adopted without derivation or convergence analysis.
  • ad hoc to paper Sprout tip migration is governed by the maximum of psi in Eq. (8.1), combining chemotaxis, haptotaxis and random motility with weights w1-w3.
    The rule is constructed for this simulation; no biological data support this specific functional form or the chosen weights.
  • ad hoc to paper Anastomosis occurs only when two sprout tips are von Neumann neighbours, with probability Pa; branching requires maturity, space and probability Pb.
    The text admits the anastomosis and branching rules are not clearly known and chooses this convention for the simulation.
  • ad hoc to paper Initial TAF concentrations follow a Gaussian profile of distance from the tumour (Eq. 10), and fibronectin follows a Gaussian near the vessel plane.
    These initial conditions are chosen for convenience, not measured from biological data.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Tumour Induced Angiogenesis and Its Simulation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NYXNAUYW

@misc{pith2026190902462,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Tumour Induced Angiogenesis and Its Simulation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NYXNAUYW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.02462}
}
read the original abstract

Due to over-metabolism, the tumour cells become hypoxic. To overcome this situation tumour cells secret several chemical substrates to attract nearby blood vessels towards it (angiogenesis). Transition from avascular to vascular tumour is possible with the initiation of angiogenesis. Angiogenesis also plays a crucial role to spread the cancer cells and its colonization at the distant locations of the body (metastasis). In this paper, we briefly review the processes and factors which directly affect tumour angiogenesis or may get affected by it. A model based on cellular automata is developed to demonstrate this complex process through MATLAB based simulation.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    H., Hlushchuk, R., & Djonov, V

    Burri, P. H., Hlushchuk, R., & Djonov, V. (2004). Intussusceptive angiogenesis: its emergence, its characteristics, and its significance. Developmental dynamics: an official publication of the American Association of Anatomists, 231(3), 474-488

    work page 2004

  2. [2]

    K., Fausto, N., & Aster, J

    Kumar, V., Abbas, A. K., Fausto, N., & Aster, J. C. (2014). Robbins and Cotran pathologic basis of disease, professional edition e-book. Elsevier health sciences

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    Cao, Y., Hong, A., Schulten, H., & Post, M. J. (2005). Update on therapeutic neovascularization. Cardiovascular Research, 65, 639–648

    work page 2005

  4. [4]

    Koch, A. E. (2003). Angiogenesis as a target in rheumatoid arthritis. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 62 Suppl 2, ii60–67

    work page 2003

  5. [5]

    R., & Sa ne, D

    Martin, A., Komada, M. R., & Sa ne, D. C. (2003). Abnormal angiogenesis in diabetes mellitus. Medicinal Research Reviews, 23, 117–145

    work page 2003

  6. [6]

    Carmeliet, P. (2005). Angiogenesis in life, disease and medicine. Nature, 438, 932 –936

    work page 2005

  7. [7]

    Hanahan, D., & Weinberg, R. A. (2000). The hallmarks of cancer. Cell, 100(1), 57-70

    work page 2000

  8. [8]

    E., & Chaplain, M

    Orme, M. E., & Chaplain, M. A. J. (1996). A mathematical model of vascular tumour growth and invasion. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 23(10), 43-60

    work page 1996

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    Zetter, B. R. (1998). Angiogenesis and tumour metastasis. Annual review of medicine, 49(1), 407-424

    1998

  2. [10]

    Carmeliet, P., & Jain, R. K. (2000). Angiogenesis in cancer and other diseases. Nature, 407(6801), 249

    2000

  3. [11]

    Hillen, F., & Griffioen, A. W. (2007). Tumour vascularization: sprouting angiogenesis and beyond. Cancer and Metastasis Reviews, 26(3-4), 489-502

    2007

  4. [12]

    M., Ferguson, G

    Sholley, M. M., Ferguson, G. P., Seibel, H. R., Montour, J. L., & Wilson, J. D. (1984). Mechanisms of neovascularization. Vascular sprouting can occur without proliferation of endothelial cells. Laboratory investigation; a journal of technical methods and pathology, 51(6), 624-634

    1984

  5. [13]

    Rafii, S., Heissig, B., & Hattori, K. (2002). Efficient mobilization and recruitment of marrow -derived endothelial and hematopoietic stem cells by adenoviral vectors expressing angiogenic factors. Gene therapy, 9(10), 631

    2002

  6. [14]

    R., Lyden, D., Tateno, M.,

    Hattori, K., Dias, S., Heissig, B., Hackett, N. R., Lyden, D., Tateno, M., ... & Moore, M. A. (2001). Vascular endothelial growth factor and angiopoietin -1 stimulate postnatal hematopoiesis by recruitment of vasculogenic and hematopoietic stem cells. Journal of Experimental M...

    2001

  7. [15]

    Hynes, R. O. (1990). Interactions of fibronectins. In Fibronectins (pp. 84-112). Springer, New York, NY

    1990

  8. [16]

    B., & Quigley, J

    Lacovara, J., Cramer, E. B., & Quigley, J. P. (1984). Fibronectin enhancement of directed migration of B16 melanoma cells. Cancer research, 44(4), 1657-1663

    1984

  9. [17]

    Hynes, R. O. (2012). Fibronectins. Springer Science & Business Media

    2012

  10. [18]

    M., & Machado, K

    Hoff, P. M., & Machado, K. K. (2012). Role of angiogenesis in the pathogenesis of cancer. Cancer treatment reviews, 38(7), 825-833

    2012

  11. [19]

    J., & Maniotis, A

    Folberg, R., Hendrix, M. J., & Maniotis, A. J. (2000). Vasculogenic mimicry and tumour angiogenesis. The American journal of pathology, 156(2), 361-381

    2000

  12. [20]

    Bergers, G., & Benjamin, L. E. (2003). Angiogenesis: tumourigenesis and the angiogenic switch. Nature reviews cancer, 3(6), 401

    2003

  13. [21]

    North, S., Moenner, M., & Bikfalvi, A. (2005). Recent developments in the regulation of the angiogenic switch by cellular stress factors in tumours. Cancer letters, 218(1), 1-14

    2005

  14. [22]

    Semenza, G. L. (2004). Hydroxylation of HIF -1: oxygen sensing at the molecular level. Physiology, 19(4), 176-182

    2004

  15. [23]

    J., Huang, Y., Gerber, H

    Tang, N., Wang, L., Esko, J., Giordano, F. J., Huang, Y., Gerber, H. P., ... & Johnson, R. S. (2004). Loss of HIF-1α in ECs disrupts a hypoxia -driven VEGF autocrine loop necessary for tumourigenesis. Cancer cell, 6(5), 485-495

    2004

  16. [24]

    W., Bae, S

    Lee, J. W., Bae, S. H., Jeong, J. W., Kim, S. H., & Kim, K. W. (2004). Hypoxia -inducible factor (HIF-1) α: its protein stability and biological functions. Experimental & molecular medicine, 36(1), 1

    2004

  17. [25]

    H., Pugh, C

    Masson, N., Willam, C., Maxwell, P. H., Pugh, C. W., & Ratcliffe, P. J. (2001). Independent function of two destruction domains in hypoxia ‐inducible factor ‐α chains activated by prolyl hydroxylation. The EMBO journal, 20(18), 5197-5206

    2001

  18. [26]

    M., & Simon, M

    Hickey, M. M., & Simon, M. C. (2006). Regulation of angiogenesis by hypoxia and hypoxia ‐inducible factors. Current topics in developmental biology, 76, 217-257

    2006

  19. [27]

    J., & Johnson, R

    Giordano, F. J., & Johnson, R. S. (2001). Angiogenesis: the role of the microenvironment in flipping the switch. Current opinion in genetics & development, 11(1), 35-40

    2001

  20. [28]

    W., Poettler, M., Unseld, M., & Zielinski, C

    Prager, G. W., Poettler, M., Unseld, M., & Zielinski, C. C. (2012). Angiogenesis in cancer: Anti -VEGF escape mechanisms. Translational lung cancer research, 1(1), 14

    2012

  21. [29]

    & Keith, B

    Skuli, N., Liu, L., Runge, A., Wang, T., Yuan, L., Patel, S., ... & Keith, B. (2009). Endothelial deletion of hypoxia-inducible factor –2α (HIF -2α) alters vascular function and tumour angiogenesis. Blood, 114(2), 469-477

    2009

  22. [30]

    F., Patan, S., Bartunkova, S., Maisonpierre, P

    Suri, C., Jones, P. F., Patan, S., Bartunkova, S., Maisonpierre, P. C., Davis, S., ... & Yancopoulos, G. D. (1996). Requisite role of angiopoietin -1, a ligand for the TIE2 receptor, during embryonic angiogenesis. Cell, 87(7), 1171-1180

    1996

  23. [31]

    N., Yancopoulos, G

    Thurston, G., Suri, C., Smith, K., McClain, J., Sato, T. N., Yancopoulos, G. D., & McDonald, D. M. (1999). Leakage -resistant blood vessels in mice transgenically overexpressing angiopoietin -

    1999

  24. [32]

    Science, 286(5449), 2511-2514

  25. [33]

    A., Patel, S

    Bertout, J. A., Patel, S. A., & Simon, M. C. (2008). The impact of O 2 availability on human cancer. Nature Reviews Cancer, 8(12), 967

    2008

  26. [34]

    L., Skuli, N., & Simon, M

    Krock, B. L., Skuli, N., & Simon, M. C. (2011). Hypoxia -induced angiogenesis: good and evil. Genes & cancer, 2(12), 1117-1133

    2011

  27. [35]

    Greenblatt, M., & Philippe, S. K. (1968). Tumour angiogenesis: transfilter diffusion studies in the hamster by the transparent chamber technique. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 41(1), 111-124

    1968

  28. [36]

    Folkman, J. (1971). Tumour angiogenesis: therapeutic implications. New england journal of medicine, 285(21), 1182-1186

    1971

  29. [37]

    Carmeliet, P. (1999). Developmental biology: controlling the cellular brakes. Nature, 401(6754), 657

    1999

  30. [38]

    A., Bergin, F

    Baker, E. A., Bergin, F. G., & Leaper, D. J. (2000). Plasminogen activator system, vascular endothelial growth factor, and colorectal cancer progression. Molecular Pathology, 53(6), 307

    2000

  31. [39]

    Wang, H., & Keiser, J. A. (1998). Vascular endothelial growth factor upregulates the expression of matrix metalloproteinases in vascular smooth muscle cells: role of flt-1. Circulation research, 83(8), 832-840

    1998

  32. [40]

    Sun, Y., Fan, X., Zhang, Q., Shi, X., Xu, G., Zou, C. (2017). Cancer -associated fibroblasts secrete FGF-1 to promote ovarian proliferation, migration, and invasion through the activation of FGF -1/FGFR4 signaling. Tumour Biology, 39(7), 1010428317712592

    2017

  33. [41]

    Cao, R., Ji, H., Feng, N., Zhang, Y., Yang, X., Andersson, P., et al. (2012). Collaborative interplay between FGF-2 and VEGF-C promotes lymphangiogenesis and metastasis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109, 15894–15899

    2012

  34. [42]

    H., Jones, P

    Davis, S., Aldrich, T. H., Jones, P. F., Acheson, A., Compton, D. L., Jain, V., ... & Yancopoulos, G. D. (1996). Isolation of angiopoietin -1, a ligand for the TIE2 receptor, by secretion -trap expression cloning. Cell, 87(7), 1161-1169

    1996

  35. [43]

    Heldin, C. H. (2013). Targeting the PDGF signaling pathway in tumour treatment. Cell Communication and Signaling, 11, 97

    2013

  36. [44]

    P., Galdzicki, M., Wang, X., et al

    Wu, E., Palmer, N., Tian, Z., Moseman, A. P., Galdzicki, M., Wang, X., et al. (2008). Comprehensive dissection of PDGF-PDGFR signaling pathways in PDGFR genetically defined cells. PLoS One, 3, e3794

    2008

  37. [45]

    O., Falck, A

    Jansson, S., Aaltonen, K., Bendahl, P. O., Falck, A. K., Karlsson, M., Pietras, K., Rydén, L. (2018). The PDGF pathway in breast cancer is linked to tumour aggressiveness, triple -negative subtype and early recurrence. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, doi: 10.1007/s10549 ...

    2018 doi

  38. [46]

    A., Busarla, S

    Kerr, D. A., Busarla, S. V. P., Gimbel, D. C., Sohani, A. R., Nazarian, R. M. (2017). mTOR, VEGF, PDGFR, and c-kit signaling pathway activation in Kaposi sarcoma. Human Pathology, 65, 157 -165

    2017

  39. [47]

    D., Hedlund, E

    Xue, Y., Lim, S., Yang, Y., Wang, Z., Jensen, L. D., Hedlund, E. M., et al. (2012). PDGF -BB modulates hematopoiesis and tumour angiogenesis by inducing erythropoietin production in strom al cells. Nature Medicine, 18, 100–110

    2012

  40. [48]

    L., & Blobe, G

    Elliott, R. L., & Blobe, G. C. (2005). Role of transforming growth factor Beta in human cancer. Journal of clinical oncology, 23(9), 2078-2093

    2005

  41. [49]

    M., Rak, J., Hung, M

    Petit, A. M., Rak, J., Hung, M. C., Rockwell, P., Goldstein, N., Fendly, B., & Kerbel, R. S. (1997). Neutralizing antibodies against epidermal growth factor and ErbB -2/neu receptor tyrosine kinases down - regulate vascular endothelial growth factor production by tumour cells ...

    1997

  42. [50]

    Bonnans, C., Chou, J., & Werb, Z. (2014). Remodelling the extracellular matrix in development and disease. Nature reviews Molecular cell biology, 15(12), 786

    2014

  43. [51]

    Nishida, N., Yano, H., Nishida, T., Kamura, T., & Kojiro, M. (2006). Angiogenesis in cancer. Vascular health and risk management, 2(3), 213

    2006

  44. [52]

    Zhang, G., Jin, G., Nie, X., Mi, R., Zhu, G., Jia, W., & Liu, F. (2014). Enhanced anti tumour efficacy of an oncolytic herpes simplex virus expressing an endostatin –angiostatin fusion gene in human glioblastoma stem cell xenografts. PLoS One, 9(4), e95872

    2014

  45. [53]

    Xing, P., Zhang, J., Yan, Z., Zhao, G., Li, X., Wang, G., ... & Ma, Y. (2017). Recombined humanized endostatin (End ostar) combined with chemotherapy for advanced bone and soft tissue sarcomas in stage IV. Oncotarget, 8(22), 36716

    2017

  46. [54]

    C., Bachireddy, P., Lynch, R

    Giuriato, S., Ryeom, S., Fan, A. C., Bachireddy, P., Lynch, R. C., Rioth, M. J., ... & Folkman, J. (2006). Sustained regression of tumours upon MYC inactivation requires p53 or thrombospondin -1 to reverse the angiogenic switch. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,...

    2006

  47. [55]

    O., & Lawler, J

    Kazerounian, S., Yee, K. O., & Lawler, J. (2008). Thrombospondins: from structure to therapeutics. Cellular and molecular life sciences, 65(5), 700

    2008

  48. [56]

    H., & Augustin, H

    Eberhard, A., Kahlert, S., Goede, V., Hemmerlein, B., Plate, K. H., & Augustin, H. G. (2000). Heterogeneity of angiogenesis and blood vessel maturation in human tumours: implications for antiangiogenic tumour therapies. Cancer research, 60(5), 1388-1393

    2000

  49. [57]

    F., Kittler, H., & Pehamberger, H

    Valencak, J., Heere -Ress, E., Kopp, T., Schoppmann, S. F., Kittler, H., & Pehamberger, H. (2004). Selective immunohistochemical staining shows significant prognostic influence of lymphatic and blood vessels in patients with malignant melanoma. European journal of cancer, 40(3...

    2004

  50. [58]

    Nico, B., Benagiano, V., Mangieri, D., Maruotti, N., Vacca, A., & Ribatti, D. (2008). Evaluation of microvascular density in tumours: pro and contra. Histology and histopathology, 23(5), 601-607

    2008

  51. [59]

    A., & Kim, K

    Melnyk, O., Shuman, M. A., & Kim, K. J. (1996). Vascular endothelial growth factor promotes tumour dissemination by a mechanism distinct from its effect on primary tumour growth. Cancer research, 56(4), 921-924

    1996

  52. [60]

    Fidler, I. J. (1970). Metastasis: quantitative analysis of distribution and fate of tumour emboli labeled with 125I-5-iodo-2′-deoxyuridine. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 45(4), 773-782

    1970

  53. [61]

    D., & Chambers, A

    Hedley, B. D., & Chambers, A. F. (2009). Tumour dormancy and met astasis. Advances in cancer research, 102, 67-101

    2009

  54. [62]

    Valastyan, S., & Weinberg, R. A. (2011). Tumour metastasis: molecular insights and evolving paradigms. Cell, 147(2), 275-292

    2011

  55. [63]

    R., & Chaplain, M

    Anderson, A. R., & Chaplain, M. A. J. (1998). Continuous and discrete mathemati cal models of tumour- induced angiogenesis. Bulletin of mathematical biology, 60(5), 857-899

    1998

  56. [64]

    Milde, F., Bergdorf, M., & Koumoutsakos, P. (2008). A hybrid model for three -dimensional simulations of sprouting angiogenesis. Biophysical journal, 95(7), 3146-3160

    2008

  57. [65]

    A., & Dudek, A

    Wcisło, R., Dzwinel, W., Yuen, D. A., & Dudek, A. Z. (2009). A 3 -D model of tumour progression based on complex automata driven by particle dynamics. Journal of molecular modeling, 15(12), 1517

    2009

  58. [66]

    R., Alarcón, T., Maini, P

    Owen, M. R., Alarcón, T., Maini, P. K., & Byrne, H. M. (2009). Angiogenesis and vascular remodelling in normal and cancerous tissues. Journal of mathematical biology, 58(4-5), 689

    2009

  59. [67]

    S., Zaitlen, B

    Shirinifard, A., Gens, J. S., Zaitlen, B. L., Popławski, N. J., Swat, M., & Glazier, J. A. (2009). 3D multi -cell simulation of tumour growth and angiogenesis. PloS one, 4(10), e7190

    2009

  60. [68]

    Lyu, J., Cao, J., Zhang, P., Liu, Y., & Cheng, H. (2016). Coupled hybrid continuum -discrete model of tumour angiogenesis and growth. PloS one, 11(10), e0163173

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.