Peptide Library

Human study PLS-00206

Elevated expression of thymosin β4, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), and hypoxia inducible factor (HIF)-1α in early-stage cervical cancers.

Cross-sectional study · Not reported participants enrolled · not included in the assessments (wrong compound)

Version 1 · published November 8, 2026 · evidence through November 8, 2026 · research snapshot 2026.1.1 · methodology ev-1 · Automated assessment by AI (claude-opus-5-5 and claude-sonnet-5-5), not reviewed by a person.

Only the abstract was available. Essential methods may be missing, which limits what can be judged.

Reports of this study

Every publication, registration and abstract describing this one study. Participants are counted once.

  • Elevated expression of thymosin β4, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), and hypoxia inducible factor (HIF)-1α in early-stage cervical cancers.primary · Pathology oncology research : POR · 2011-01-07 · PMID 21213129 · DOI

Design and participants

Design
Cross-sectional study
Population
Cervical cancer tissue samples at various stages (42 on a tissue microarray) plus primary tumors and lymph node metastases from 15 patients with metastatic disease
Conditions
Cervical cancer, Squamous cell carcinoma
Planned enrollment (registry)
Not reported
Enrolled
Not reported
Randomized
Not reported
Completed follow-up
Not reported

Intervention and comparator

What each group received. Related peptides, analogs and combinations are never treated as the compound itself.

    What the authors reported

    As stated in the sources. This is the authors’ account, not Peptide Library’s assessment.

    Adverse events

    None reported. That is not evidence of safety, and how safety was monitored isn’t described.

    The authors concluded (paraphrased): The authors suggest that endogenous Tβ4, VEGF and HIF-1α drive angiogenesis and local invasiveness at early-stage cervical carcinoma but have a negative or no effect on metastatic potential.

    Peptide Library’s assessment

    An automated assessment, made by AI separately from the authors’ conclusions and not reviewed by a person. How risk of bias is assessed.

    Limitations

    • inappropriate population: Cancer tissue specimens only. No participant received thymosin beta-4, so the study cannot address treatment effects or safety.
    • abstract only: Only the PubMed abstract is available. Methods, sample details and statistics are largely unreported.
    • inappropriate endpoint: Outcomes are tissue expression levels of endogenous proteins and vessel counts, which are surrogate laboratory markers.
    • other: Thymosin β4 was not administered. Endogenous tissue expression was measured, so the study says nothing about the effects or safety of giving the compound.
    • small or imprecise: The tissue microarray had 42 samples plus 15 metastatic cases, giving limited power for the stage comparisons.
    • no control group: The comparison is between tumour stages and lymph node status, not between treatment and control groups.

    No risk-of-bias assessment has been published for this study’s results.

    Claims this study informs

    Where each value comes from

    • author_conclusion: PMID 21213129, abstract (final sentence) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • design: PMID 21213129, abstract (sentences 4-5) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • limitations: PMID 21213129, abstract (sentences 3-5) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • population: PMID 21213129, abstract (sentences 4-5) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only

    • Version 1 · published November 8, 2026 · evidence through November 8, 2026 · research snapshot 2026.1.1 · methodology ev-1 · Automated assessment by AI (claude-opus-5-5 and claude-sonnet-5-5), not reviewed by a person.

    These assessments describe published research. Records marked automated were produced by AI under the published methodology and have not been reviewed by a person; they can contain errors. None of this is medical advice, not a statement about any product’s safety for human use, and not a regulatory approval. Peptide Library’s vendor and partner relationships play no part in them (editorial independence).