1. Context
2. Evidence Acquisition
3. Results
| No. | Compound | Cells/Animal | Culture | Evaluation | Treatment | Main Results | Effectively | Control | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Tacalcitol, calcipotriol, calcitriol | Human glioblastoma cell line T98G | 6 days; For cell migration and caspase activity; 24 hours LDH release; 72 - 120 hours. 48 hours for Assay of 3 H-thymidine incorporation | MTT assay, manual cell counting using a Hemocytometer, Wound healing assay, Measurement of LDH release using Cytotoxicity Detection, Caspase-Glo® 3/7 assay, RT-PCR, Assay of 3 H-thymidine incorporation | 1 nmoL - 10 μmoL | Calcitriol and both its analogs decreased cell viability and/or growth, dose-dependently, mainly inhibited proliferation and reduced the migration rate | Effective | Ethanol | Emanuelsson et al. (17) |
| 2 | Calcitriol | Human GBM cell lines U251, U87MG and T98G, and human breast adenocarcinoma cell line T47D | For cell survival assay 96 hours, 17 hours to cell migration and 48 hours for Immunofluorescence | Tissue microarray construction, Immunohistochemistry, Transfections were carried out, using Lipofectamine 2000, Western blotting (WB), the cells were counted manually, using a hemocytometer, wound healing assay, RNA extraction, and real-time qPCR, Immunofluorescence (IF) | 1 µM | Calcitriol increased the expression of VDR in tumor tissue. VDR expression was correlated with an improved outcome in patients with GBM. Treatment with calcitriol decreased the migration rate of T98G cells and retarded their survival. | Effective | Isopropanol | Salomon et al. (41) |
| 3 | Calcitriol, trichostatin A (TSA), 5-azacytidine (5-aza) | GBM cell lines, Tx3868, Tx3095, U87MG, U118 and U373MG | 24, 48, and 72 hours | Colorimetric immunoassay, Western blotting, PCR, and flow cytometry | 10-6 - 10-10 M calcitriol, 5 - 20 ng/mL TSA, 0.1 - 5 µM 5-AZA | Treatment did not result in significant antiproliferative effects. Treatment had not modulatory effects on the expression of key components of the Notch-signaling pathway. Combination therapy with Calcitriol plus TSA or 5-AZA reduced TSA or 5-AZA antiproliferative properties. | No effective | Ethanol | Reichrath et al. (42) |
| 4 | Calcitriol, Calcidiol | TX3868 and TX3095 were established from glioblastoma and xenografted on mice, COS-1 cells and rat GBM cell line C6 | 6 days | WST-1 Reagent, nested touchdown reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR), real-time RT-PCR, high-performance TLC | 10-12 to 10-6 mol/L Calcitriol and Calcidiol in a dose of 2.5 × 10-8 mol/L | 16 splice variants of CYP27B1 in GBM with different expressions between tumor and normal tissues were found, Calcitriol had a proliferative effect on some human GBM cell lines, Calcidiol had the antiproliferative effect in 6 cell lines and proliferative effect on the remaining three cell lines. | Calcitriol was without the expected effects. Calcidiol was effective | Ethanol | Diesel et al. (43) |
| 5 | Cholecalciferol, C2-ceramide | Human glioblastoma cell line Hu197 | 6 and 12 hours | Light microscopy, DNA extraction & pulsed field gel electrophoresis MTT, assay, and lipids extraction & purification | 50 µg of ceramide or 50 µg of cholecalciferol | Cholecalciferol treatment was increased by intracellular ceramide and induced cell death. Ceramide also resulted in induced cell death in the same cells | Effective | Same cells without any intervention | Magrassi et al. (44) |
| 6 | Calcitriol | The clones C6.9D3Sen and C6.4 D3Res were isolated from the C6 rat glioma cell line | 24 hours | Plasmid construction &transfections, MTT assay, DNA fragmentation, southern blot, northern blot analysis, biorad protein assay, radiolabelled ligand assay | 10-11 to 10-7 M | Treatment reduced cell number compared with control cells | Effective | Ethanol | Davoust et al. (38) |
| 7 | Calcitriol | Rat glioma C6 cell line | 24 hours | cDNA library and high-density filters, hybridization and differential screening analysis, DNA sequencing and computer analysis, RNA isolation for Northern blot analysis and cDNA probe preparation, evaluation of the length of inserts | 5 × 10-8 M | Calcitriol has reduced the expression of PMP22/gas3, SPARC/ON, MAP1C/dynein heavy chain, S100β, and aldolase C genes, and increased cysteine-rich protein, MGP, β-Tubulin, mortalin | Effective | Ethanol | Baudet et al. (45) |
| 8 | Calcitriol | Rat glioma C6.9 and C6.2 cell lines. | 24 hours | MTT Assay, DNA Isolation & Analysis, RNA Isolation & Northern Blot, DNA Flow Cytometry, Electron Microscopy | l0-7 M | Cell death induced by calcitriol was depended on the synthesis and expression of genes such as c-myc, p53, and gadd45 | Effective | Ethanol | Baudet et al. (40) |
| 9 | Calcitriol, CB 1093, EB 1089, KH 1060, MC 903, and MC 1288 | C6 glioma cell line from rat | 24 hours | MTT assay, Northern blot analysis, DNA isolation, and analysis | 10-7 - 10-11 M | KH 1060 had the greatest effect in inducing the death of glioma cells. The effect of MC 1288 and CB 1093 was equal to Calcitriol. EB 1089 was partially less effective than Calcitriol and MC 903 had only a subtle activity. Cell death was caused by the c-myc protooncogene induction. | Effective | Ethanol | Baudet et al. (39) |
| 10 | Calcitriol, Cholecalciferol, All-trans Retinoic Acid (RA) | Human glioblastoma cell lines Hu 70 and Hu 197 | 1 - 8 hours | MTT and Lactic Dehydrogenase Assays, RNA Analysis and Light Microscopy | 0.01 - 100 µM | Glioblastoma cell growth was reduced even at low concentrations of treatments. | Effective | Same cells without any intervention | Magrassi et al. (46) |
| 11 | Calcitriol, 24,25(OH)2D3 | Rat C6 glioma cell line | 6 days | MTT Assay and RNA Analysis; LiCVUrea method, Northern blot analysis | 10-8 - 10-12 M | Cell death occurred even 24 h after the presence of calcitriol. Calcitriol regulated the expression of its own receptors in C6 glioma cells. | Effective | Ethanol | Naveilhan et al. (47) |
| No. | Compound | Animal | Evaluation | Treatment | Main Results | Effectively | Control | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Calcitriol | Mice | Neurosphere formation assay, Tumor xenografts, MRI | Inject 1 μg/kg body weight | Calcitriol reduced the tumor size | Effective | Sesame oil, sterile water | Hu et al. (48) |
| 2 | EM1, calcitriol | Mice | WST-1 colorimetric assay (Roche), FACScan flow cytometry, wound healing assay, cell adhesion assay, matrigel-coated; transwell inserts (millipore), gelatin zymography assay, Western blot, immunofluorescence, RNA extraction, and real-time q PCR, plasma calcium levels in mice and liver and kidney histological analysis, molecular docking | 0.01 - 100 nmoL in vitro (cells); inject 50 µg/kg body weight in vivo (mice) | EM1 and calcitriol treatment reduced cell viability. EM1 had anti-migratory effects and decreased invasive capacity. EM1 bonded to the VDR with greater affinity than calcitriol. EM1 treatment had not induced hypercalcemia or toxicity effects in vivo. | Effective | Isopropanol | Ferronato et al. (18) |
| 3 | Calcitriol, TMZ | Rat | Orthotopic xenograft, MRI | Injection of 0.2 µg/kg/day of calcitriol dissolved in 200 µL of saline solution and also received TMZ as described above. | Combined therapy reduced tumor size and prolonged survival duration in vivo | Effective | dimethyl sulfoxide | Bak et al. (1) |
| 4 | Calcitriol | Rats | Northern blot & RNase protection, immunostaining methods, DNA transection & chloramphenicol acetyltransferase (CAT) assays | Injection of 20 mg/kg body weight | Treatment resulted in a decrease in the level of P75NTR mRNA in the spinal cord. | Effective | Ethanol | Naveilhan et al. (49) |
| 5 | ML-344, calcitriol | Mice | WST-1 colorimetric assay (Roche), cell counting, flow cytometry, wound healing assays, matrigel-coated; transwell inserts (millipore), immunofluorescence, plasma calcium levels in mice, molecular docking studies | 10-11 to 10-7 moL + 100 nmoL extra in vitro (cells); Inject 5 μg/kg body weight in vivo (mice) | Both the ML-344 and calcitriol reduced the cell viability and migration capacity, ML-344 did not hypercalcemic effect in vivo, ML-344 was able to bind to VDR with stronger affinity than calcitriol. | Effective | Isopropanol | Ferronato et al. (16) |
| Author | Study Limitation | Inconsistency | Indirectness | Imprecision | Publication Bias | Dose Effect | Overall Quality |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hu et al. (48) | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | ++++ |
| Ferronato et al. (16) | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | ++++ |
| Emanuelsson et al. (17) | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | ×b | +++ |
| Ferronato et al. (18) | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | ×c | +++ |
| Bak et al. (1) | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | ×d | +++ |
| Salomon et al. (43) | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | ×d | +++ |
| Reichrath et al. (49) | √ | √ | ×e | ×f | √ | √ | ++ |
| Diesel et al. (43) | √ | √ | ×e | ×f | √ | √ | ++ |
| Magrassi et al. (46) | √ | √ | √ | Unclearg | √ | √ | +++ |
| Davoust et al. (38) | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | ++++ |
| Baudet et al. (45) | √ | √ | ×h | ×f | √ | ×d | + |
| Baudet et al. (40) | √ | √ | √ | ×f | √ | ×d | ++ |
| Naveilhan et al. (49) | √ | √ | ×h | ×f | √ | √ | ++ |
| Baudet et al. (39) | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | ++++ |
| Magrassi et al. (44) | √ | √ | √ | Unclearg | √ | √ | +++ |
| Naveilhan et al. (47) | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | ++++ |
aGRADE factors: √, no serious limitations; ×, serious limitations; Unclear, unable to rate items based on available information. For overall quality of evidence: +, very low; ++, low; +++, moderate; ++++, high.
bDose-dependency about LDH-release and migration was not implied.
cDose-dependency only about cell viability was implied.
dNo dose-dependency was observed.
eOur pre-defined outcomes comprehensively were not examined.
fNo statistical test was used.
gStatistical analysis for considered results is not shown.
hOutcomes differ from those of primary interest.
| Item | Bak et al. (1) | Ferronato et al. (16) | Ferronato et al. (18) | Naveilhan et al. (47) | Hu et al. (48) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Was the allocation sequence adequately generated and applied? | U | U | U | U | U |
| 2. Were the groups similar at baseline or were they adjusted for confounders in the analysis? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| 3. Was the allocation to the different groups adequately concealed? | U | U | U | U | U |
| 4. Were the animals randomly housed during the experiment? | U | Y | Y | U | U |
| 5. Were the caregivers and/or investigators blinded from knowledge which intervention in each animal received during the experiment? | U | U | U | U | U |
| 6. Were animals selected at random for the outcome assessment? | U | U | U | U | U |
| 7. Was the outcome assessor blinded? | U | U | U | U | U |
| 8. Were incomplete outcome data adequately addressed? | U | U | U | U | U |
| 9. Are reports of the study free of selective outcome reporting? | U | U | U | U | U |
| 10. Was the study apparently free of other problems that could result in high risk of bias? | U | U | U | U | U |
Abbreviations: Y, yes; N, no; U, unclear.
