Attachment, spreading and growth in vitro of highly malignant and low malignant murine fibrosarcoma cells

Highly malignant cell lines and low-malignant cell lines isolated from three different methylcholanthrene-induced murine fibrosarcomas were examined for their ability to attach to plastic dishes and collagen-coated dishes under serumfree conditions and in the presence of serum. Most of the cells from the three highly malignant lines attached and spread under all conditions. By 72h, there was a significant increase in the number of cells indicating that at least some of the cells had undergone division (even in the absence of serum). In contrast, fewer of the cells from the three low-malignant lines attached and spread on the plastic or collagen substrates in the absence of serum or in the presence of 0.1 per cent serum. However, when 15 μ g laminin per dish was added along with the lowmalignant cells, they then attached and spread on the plastic and collagen-coated dishes. Previous studies have indicated that the highly malignant lines express cell surface antigens that cross-react with laminin while the low-malignant cell lines do not. We speculate that the differences between the high- and low-malignant cells in the expression of cell surface laminin-like antigens contribute to the dissimilarities in attachment and spreading capacity. These differences may also contribute to the dissimilarity between these cells in malignant potential.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/42592/1/10585_2005_Article_BF01758953.pd

Is Measured Hearing Aid Benefit Affected by Seeing Baseline Outcome Questionnaire Responses?

PURPOSE: To determine whether hearing aid outcome measured by the Hearing Handicap Inventory (HHI) for the Elderly/Adults (Newman, Weinstein, Jacobson, & Hug, 1990; Ventry & Weinstein, 1982) is differentially affected by informed vs. blind administration of the postfitting questionnaire. METHOD: Participants completed the HHI at their hearing aid evaluation and again at their hearing aid follow-up visit. At follow-up, half received a clean HHI form (blind administration), whereas the remainder responded on their original form (informed administration) and could thus base their follow-up responses on those they gave at the hearing aid evaluation. RESULTS: The data show that for the population examined here, informed administration of the follow-up HHI did not yield a different outcome to blind administration of the follow-up HHI. This was not influenced by past hearing aid use, age of the participant, or the duration of time between baseline questionnaire completion and follow-up completion. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that completion of follow-up questionnaires in either informed or blind format will have little impact on HHI responses, most likely because of the many other factors that combined to influence hearing aid outcome