MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1707167759 · doi:10.1139/bcb-2013-0041

Comparative in vitro evaluation of transportability and toxicity of capecitabine and its metabolites in cells derived from normal human kidney and renal cancers

2013· article· en· W1707167759 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Vijaya L. Damaraju, Delores Mowles, Marnie Goodwin Wilson, Michelle Kuzma, Carol E. Cass, Michael B. Sawyer

Bibliographic record

VenueBiochemistry and Cell Biology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNucleoside transporterCapecitabineNucleosideCell cultureCytotoxicityMetaboliteCytotoxic T cellChemistryIn vitroNucleobaseBiochemistryCancer cellPharmacologyCancer researchBiologyTransporterCancerDNA

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The goal of this study was to understand roles of nucleoside and nucleobase transport processes in capecitabine pharmacology in cells derived from human renal proximal tubule cells (hRPTCs) and three human renal cell carcinoma (RCC) cell lines, A498, A704, and Caki-1. Human equilibrative nucleoside transporters 1 and 2 (hENT1 and hENT2) mediated activities and a sodium-independent nucleobase activity were present in hRPTCs. In hRPTCs, uptake of 5'-deoxy-5-fluorouridine (DFUR), a nucleoside metabolite of capecitabine, was pH dependent with highest uptake seen at pH 6.0. In RCC cell lines, hENT1 was the major nucleoside transporter. Nucleobase transport activity was variable among the three RCC cell lines, with Caki-1 showing the highest and A498 showing the lowest activities. Treatment of RCC cell lines with interferon alpha (IFN-α) increased thymidine phosphorylase levels and prior treatment of RCC cell lines with IFN-α followed by 5-FU or DFUR resulted in enhanced sensitivity of all cell lines to 5-FU and two of three cell lines to DFUR. We report for the first time a nucleobase transport activity in hRPTCs and RCC cell lines. In addition, our in vitro cytotoxicity results showed that RCC cell lines differed in their response to 5-FU and DFUR and prior treatment with IFN-α potentiated cytotoxic response to metabolites of capecitabine.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiochemistry and Cell Biology→Same topicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments→French-language works237,207→