Data_Sheet_1_Sodium butyrate impedes the lymphoma caused by Marek’s disease virus via regulating the mitochondrial apoptosis pathway.docx

Sodium butyrate (NaB) has garnered attention in recent years for its ability to impede the malignant progression of tumors. In order to explore the potential inhibitory effects of NaB on the replication of Marek’s disease virus (MDV) and subsequent lymphoma formation, newly hatched chickens were infected with the vvMDV Md5 strain and administered NaB prior to (prevention group) or following (treatment group) Md5 inoculation. The results revealed that NaB played a pivotal role in diminishing both the incidence and fatality rates in chickens afflicted with Md5 infection. Notably, NaB exhibited a remarkable capacity to inhibit the expression of MDV immediate early genes, i.e., ICP4 and ICP27, thus attenuating tumorigenesis in the chicken spleen. To further elucidate the mechanism of NaB on lymphoma cells, MDV bearing lymphoma cells, i.e., MSB-1 were exposed to NaB for 24 h prior to various experimental tests. The results revealed that NaB effectively hindered the proliferation, migration, and colony formation of MSB-1 cells. Furthermore, NaB demonstrated the ability to modulate the key molecules in mitochondrial apoptosis pathway. Taken together, these findings reveal that NaB can impede the lymphoma caused by MDV via regulating the mitochondrial apoptosis pathway, both in vitro and in vivo. These results suggest that the utilization of NaB warrants serious consideration as a promising approach for the prevention of MDV.</p

Additional file 1 of Clinical features and treatment outcome of lymphoepithelioma-like carcinoma from multiple primary sites: a population-based, multicentre, real-world study

Additional file 1. Figure S1: Kaplan–Meier survival analysis for OS in patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy at stage I (A). DFS(B) and OS(C) in patients receiving adjuvant radiotherapy at stage

Additional file 2 of Clinical features and treatment outcome of lymphoepithelioma-like carcinoma from multiple primary sites: a population-based, multicentre, real-world study

Additional file 2. Figure S2: Kaplan–Meier survival analysis for OS in patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy at stage II (A). DFS(B) and OS(C) in patients receiving adjuvant radiotherapy at stage I

Additional file 4 of Clinical features and treatment outcome of lymphoepithelioma-like carcinoma from multiple primary sites: a population-based, multicentre, real-world study

Additional file 4. Figure S4: Kaplan–Meier survival analysis for PFS (A) and OS (B) in patients receiving paclitaxel-based chemotherapy as first-line regimen at stage IV or after relapsed. PFS (C) and OS (D) in patients receiving gemcitabine-based chemotherapy as first-line regimen at stage IV or after relapsed. OS in patients at stage IV or after relapsed receiving radiotherapy (E

Additional file 6 of Clinical features and treatment outcome of lymphoepithelioma-like carcinoma from multiple primary sites: a population-based, multicentre, real-world study

Additional file 6. Figure S6: Kaplan–Meier survival analysis for OS according to ECOG PS≥2 (A), stage III-IV (B) , high level of EBV-DNA (C), liver metastasis (D) and bone metastasis (E

Additional file 5 of Clinical features and treatment outcome of lymphoepithelioma-like carcinoma from multiple primary sites: a population-based, multicentre, real-world study

Additional file 5. Figure S5: Kaplan–Meier survival analysis for OS in patients receiving anti- angiogenesis (A) and anti- EGFR (B) therapy at stage IV or after relapsed. Kaplan–Meier survival analysis for PFS in patients receiving anti-angiogenesis (C) and anti-EGFR (D) therapy at stage IV or after relapse

Additional file 3 of Clinical features and treatment outcome of lymphoepithelioma-like carcinoma from multiple primary sites: a population-based, multicentre, real-world study

Additional file 3 Supplement Figure 3 Kaplan–Meier survival analysis for OS in patients receiving adjuvant radiotherapy at stage III (A). DFS(B) and OS(C) in patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy at stage II