2021
DOI: 10.30574/gscbps.2021.16.1.0193
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Biochemical and histopathological evaluation of an in vivo model of breast cancer

Abstract: Though, the clinical management of breast cancer has improved significantly over the past 30 years, it still remains the leading cause of cancer-related female death worldwide. Prevention is the fundamental issue in breast cancer control, for which identification markers in terms of initiation and promotion are necessary. To understand this, an animal model which can recapitulate the early symptoms of breast cancer development and progression is required. Present study is an attempt to develop a convenient and… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

1
0
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 22 publications
1
0
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The histopathological studies indicated that triple-negative mammary tumors developed in mice. 48 Similar findings were calculated from the present research study, in which we induced toxicity by DMBA and treated with different concentrations of sericin and S-AgNO 3 NPs. The biochemical and histopathological findings also revealed that both selected concentrations of silk protein sericin showed a significant difference among the treated groups and DMBA group along with a comparison to the UT control group.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 89%
“…The histopathological studies indicated that triple-negative mammary tumors developed in mice. 48 Similar findings were calculated from the present research study, in which we induced toxicity by DMBA and treated with different concentrations of sericin and S-AgNO 3 NPs. The biochemical and histopathological findings also revealed that both selected concentrations of silk protein sericin showed a significant difference among the treated groups and DMBA group along with a comparison to the UT control group.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 89%