renal clear cell carcinoma cell line a498 (Procell Inc)
Structured Review

Renal Clear Cell Carcinoma Cell Line A498, supplied by Procell Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 86/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/result/renal clear cell carcinoma cell line a498/product/Procell Inc
Average 86 stars, based on 1 article reviews
Images
1) Product Images from "A TXNIP-driven bioluminescent reporter for high-throughput discovery of glycolytic inhibitors against renal cell carcinoma"
Article Title: A TXNIP-driven bioluminescent reporter for high-throughput discovery of glycolytic inhibitors against renal cell carcinoma
Journal: BMC Biotechnology
doi: 10.1186/s12896-026-01111-7
Figure Legend Snippet: 2-DG and its derivatives inhibit glycolysis and cell proliferation of A498 cells. ( A – C ) Proliferation of A498 cells measured by CCK-8 assay after treatment with 2-DG ( A ), 2-FG ( B ), and 2-DG-d ( C ). For 2-DG treatment, the concentration gradient was set as 0 mM (vehicle control, containing equal volume of DMSO), 5 mM, 10 mM, and 15 mM; while for 2-FG and 2-DG-d treatments, the concentration gradients were consistent: 0 mM (vehicle control), 1 mM, 2 mM, 5 mM, and 10 mM. Cell viability was assessed by CCK-8 assay at the indicated time points over a 4-day period. ( D - F ) Glucose uptake capacity of A498 cells after 2-DG ( D ), 2-FG ( E ), and 2-DG-d ( F ) treatment, measured using a glucose uptake assay kit. The concentration gradients of each compound were identical to those described in the aforementioned section for cell proliferation detection. ( G - I ) Lactate production levels in A498 cells following treatment with gradient concentrations of 2-DG ( G ), 2-FG ( H ), and 2-DG-d ( I ), detected by a lactate detection kit. The concentration gradients for each compound were consistent with those used in cell proliferation detection. Data are mean ± SEM ( n = 3); data in Figs. 1A-C were analyzed by two-way ANOVA with Dunnett’s multiple comparisons test; data in Figs. 1D-I were analyzed by one-way ANOVA with Dunnett’s multiple comparisons; * p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001, **** p < 0.0001
Techniques Used: CCK-8 Assay, Concentration Assay, Control
Figure Legend Snippet: 2-DG upregulates MLXIP and TXNIP expression in A498 cells. ( A ) Volcano plot of differentially expressed genes (DEGs). ( B ) Top 10 upregulated genes from RNA-seq analysis. ( C ) TXNIP mRNA detected by RT-qPCR in A498 cells after 48 h of treatment with 2-DG (0, 5, 10, and 15 mM). ( D ) Protein expression of TXNIP and MLXIP was detected by Western blotting in A498 cells treated with 2-DG at 0, 5, 10, and 15 mM for 48 h. The 0 mM group served as the vehicle control and contained an equal volume of DMSO. ( E ) MLXIP and TXNIP mRNA expression analyzed by RT-qPCR in A498 cells 48 h after transfection with MLXIP plasmid (0, 2, and 4 µg), where 0 µg MLXIP plasmid corresponds to the empty vector plasmid used as control. Data are mean ± SEM ( n = 3); Statistical significance was analyzed by one-way ANOVA with Dunnett’s multiple comparisons; **** p < 0.0001, *** p < 0.001
Techniques Used: Expressing, RNA Sequencing, Quantitative RT-PCR, Western Blot, Control, Transfection, Plasmid Preparation
Figure Legend Snippet: TXNIP inhibits glycolysis in A498 cells. ( A ) Volcano plot of TXNIP expression-related genes in KIRC generated using LinkedOmics analysis. ( B ) GO enrichment and KEGG pathway analysis of TXNIP expression-related genes in KIRC performed using DAVID. ( C ) Comparison of TXNIP expression levels between KIRC tumors and adjacent normal tissues, and ( D ) analysis of TXNIP expression across different tumor grades, both using UALCAN. ( E - G ) Glucose uptake ( E ) and lactate production ( F ) were measured in A498 cells transfected with increasing amounts (0, 0.5, 1, and 2 µg) of TXNIP plasmid, where 0 µg TXNIP plasmid corresponds to the empty vector plasmid used as control. TXNIP mRNA analyzed by RT-qPCR in A498 cells 48 h after transfection with TXNIP plasmid ( G ). Data are mean ± SEM ( n = 3); Statistical significance was analyzed by one-way ANOVA with Dunnett’s multiple comparisons; **** p < 0.0001, *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05
Techniques Used: Expressing, Generated, Comparison, Transfection, Plasmid Preparation, Control, Quantitative RT-PCR
Figure Legend Snippet: Characterization of a stable RCC reporter cell line with TXNIP promoter-driven luciferase expression. ( A ) Schematic diagrams of pGL4.19-TXNIP-Pro-Luc2 constructs. The TXNIP promoter fragment, spanning from − 1166 bp to + 312 bp relative to the transcription start site (TSS), was cloned into the pGL4.19-Luc2 vector to drive luciferase expression. ( B ) A498-TXNIP-Pro-Luc2 cells or A498-Luc2 cells were lysed for luciferase activity analysis. ( C ) A498-TXNIP-Pro-Luc2 and A498-Luc2 cells were imaged using the IVIS Lumina LT system to obtain flux measurements (left panel, images). Quantified flux data were averaged ( n = 3) and plotted (right panel, graph). ( D , E ) After transfection of the MLXIP plasmids into A498-TXNIP-Pro-Luc2 ( D ) or A498-Luc2 cells ( E ) for 48 h, imaging was performed (left panel, images). Quantified flux data were averaged ( n = 3) and plotted (right panel, graph). ( F ) After transfection of the MLXIP plasmids into A498-TXNIP-Pro-Luc2 or A498-Luc2 cells for 48 h, the cells were lysed for luciferase activity analysis. ( G , H ) A498-TXNIP-Pro-Luc2 cells ( G ) and A498-Luc2 cells ( H ) were serially diluted, placed into wells of a 96-well plate, and immediately imaged. Quantified flux data were averaged ( n = 3) and plotted. Data are mean ± SEM ( n = 3); Statistical significance for B and C was analyzed by one-way ANOVA; for D , E , and F , it was analyzed by one-way ANOVA with Dunnett’s multiple comparisons test; **** p < 0.0001
Techniques Used: Luciferase, Expressing, Construct, Clone Assay, Plasmid Preparation, Activity Assay, Transfection, Imaging
Figure Legend Snippet: 2-DG and its derivatives activate TXNIP promoter-driven luciferase expression in A498 cells. ( A – C ) Luciferase activity driven by the TXNIP promoter (A498-TXNIP-Pro-Luc2 cells) after 48 h treatment with 2-DG ( A ), 2-FG ( B ), and 2-DG-d ( C ). For 2-DG treatment, the concentration gradient was set as 0 mM (vehicle control, containing equal volume of DMSO), 5 mM, 10 mM, and 15 mM; while for 2-FG and 2-DG-d treatments, the concentration gradients were consistent: 0 mM (vehicle control), 1 mM, 2 mM, 5 mM, and 10 mM. ( D – F ) Luciferase activity in control A498-Luc2 cells after 48 h treatment with 2-DG ( D ), 2-FG ( E ), and 2-DG-d ( F ). The concentration gradients for each compound were the same as those described for A498-TXNIP-Pro-Luc2 cells above. ( G – I ) After treating A498-TXNIP-Pro-Luc2 cells with 2-DG ( G ), 2-FG ( H ), and 2-DG-d ( I ), for 48 h, flux measurements were acquired using the IVIS Lumina LT system. ( J – L ) After treating A498-Luc2 cells with 2-DG ( J ), 2-FG ( K ), and 2-DG-d ( L ) for 48 h, flux measurements were acquired using the IVIS Lumina LT system. Top, cellular images; bottom, normalized fold induction of TXNIP-Pro-Luc2 or Luc2 treated with the indicated doses of drugs. Quantified flux data were averaged ( n = 3) and plotted. The dosage of each compound was consistent with that used in the previous luciferase activity assay. Data are mean ± SEM ( n = 3); Statistical significance was analyzed by one-way ANOVA with Dunnett’s multiple comparisons; **** p < 0.0001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05
Techniques Used: Luciferase, Expressing, Activity Assay, Concentration Assay, Control

