Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Angiogenesis assays: problems and pitfalls.

R Auerbach1, N Akhtar, R L Lewis

  • 1Laboratory of Developmental Biology, University of Wisconsin, Madison 53705, USA. rauerbac@facstaff.wisc.edu

Cancer Metastasis Reviews
|February 24, 2001
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Eco-friendly approach for the removal and simultaneous detection of cyanide toxins from drinking and wastewater sources.

Environmental pollution (Barking, Essex : 1987)·2025
Same author

Pregnancy with Wilson's Disease: A Case Series.

Mymensingh medical journal : MMJ·2024
Same author

Quantitative ethnomedicinal study and conservation status of medicinal flora used by the indigenous peoples of Sultan Khail valley, Dir Upper, Pakistan.

Brazilian journal of biology = Revista brasleira de biologia·2023
Same author

A survey in the West Midlands of the United Kingdom of current practice in managing hypotension in lower segment caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia.

International journal of obstetric anesthesia·2023
Same author

Successful Pregnancy with SLE-associated Antiphospholipid Syndrome: A Case Report.

Mymensingh medical journal : MMJ·2023
Same author

Brassica oleracea L. (Acephala Group) based zinc oxide nanoparticles and their efficacy as antibacterial agent.

Brazilian journal of biology = Revista brasleira de biologia·2022
Same journal

HER2 assessment in urothelial carcinoma: standardization challenges and the path forward.

Cancer metastasis reviews·2026
Same journal

Resolving translational challenges in cancer biology through yeast experimental evolution.

Cancer metastasis reviews·2026
Same journal

Spheroids and organoids to study long noncoding RNAs in cancer: how they could replace animal models.

Cancer metastasis reviews·2026
Same journal

Strategies and successes of smoking cessation methods in head and neck cancer patients: a systematic review.

Cancer metastasis reviews·2026
Same journal

The Hippo signaling pathway in pediatric brain tumors: molecular mechanisms and therapeutic opportunities.

Cancer metastasis reviews·2026
Same journal

Antibody-drug conjugates in breast cancer brain and leptomeningeal metastases: mechanistic insights and therapeutic progress.

Cancer metastasis reviews·2026
See all related articles

Evaluating angiogenesis inducers and inhibitors requires careful consideration of experimental models. Combining in vitro and in vivo assays offers the most reliable method for assessing efficacy and minimizing limitations.

Area of Science:

  • Biomedical research
  • Cell biology
  • Pharmacology

Background:

  • Angiogenesis, the formation of new blood vessels, is crucial in various physiological and pathological processes.
  • In vitro and in vivo models are commonly employed to study angiogenesis inducers and inhibitors.
  • Each experimental model possesses inherent advantages and limitations that can impact study outcomes.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To provide an overview of principal in vitro and in vivo methods used for studying angiogenesis.
  • To discuss the advantages and limitations associated with these experimental models.
  • To recommend a strategy for minimizing assay-specific problems in angiogenesis research.

Main Methods:

  • Review of established in vitro assays (e.g., endothelial cell proliferation, migration, tube formation).

Related Experiment Videos

  • Discussion of in vivo models (e.g., chick chorioallantoic membrane assay, Matrigel plug assay, genetically engineered mouse models).
  • Comparative analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of various angiogenesis assays.

    • Main Results:

    • In vitro assays offer high throughput and mechanistic insights but may not fully replicate the complex in vivo environment.
    • In vivo models provide a more physiologically relevant context but can be more complex, costly, and time-consuming.
    • No single assay is perfect; each has limitations that can affect the interpretation of results.

    Conclusions:

    • The efficacy of angiogenesis inducers and inhibitors is best assessed using a combination of multiple assays.
    • Integrating both in vitro and in vivo approaches can provide a more comprehensive and robust evaluation.
    • A multi-assay strategy is recommended to mitigate the inherent limitations of individual experimental models and improve the reliability of efficacy assessments.