Skip to main content
. 2016 Nov 9;6:36692. doi: 10.1038/srep36692

Figure 5.

Figure 5

(a,b) Further testing of pyridin-3-ylmethyl (4-((2-aminophenyl)carbamoyl)benzyl)-carbamate (5, Entinostat in (a) 2.5 μM) and N-(2-Aminophenyl)-4-methoxybenzamide (9 in (b) 100 μM), separately and in combination with 1,25-dihydroxy Vitamin D3 (VitD, 100 nM) in the MN8CampLuc reporter cell line. (c) Further testing of pyridin-3-ylmethyl (4-((2-aminophenyl)carbamoyl)benzyl)carbamate (5, 2.5 μM) separately and in combination with 1,25-dihydroxy Vitamin D3 (VitD, 100 nM) in the parental HT-29 colon epithelial cell line (RT-PCR quantification). The graphs display the benefit of the combination of the new class of inducers with VitD. Experiments presented in (a,b) respectively, were performed with different batches of cells (a) not predifferentiated, (b) pre-differentiated) performed in triplicate in (a) and duplicate in (b). Error bars represent standard deviation. In (a) all differences relative to control were significant (p-values < 0.01 and 0.016 for 5 + vitD) as well as the sum of vitD and 5 relative to treatment with 5 + VitD (p-value 0.021). In (b) all differences relative to control were significant (p-values < 0.01) as well as the sum of vitD and 9 relative to treatment with 9 + VitD (p-value 0.017). In (c) all differences relative to control were significant as well as the sum of vitD and 5 relative to treatment with 5 + VitD (p-values < 0.01).