Expression and migratory analysis of 5 human uveal melanoma cell lines for CXCL12, CXCL8, CXCL1, and HGF.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to characterize the presence and roles of CXCL12, CXCL8, CXCL1, and HGF in five human uveal melanoma cell lines, using different methods, in order to ascertain their significance in this disease. METHODS: Five human uveal melanoma cell lines (92.1, SP6.5, MKT-BR, OCM-1, and UW-1) of known proliferative, invasive, and metastatic potential were used in this experiment. A migration assay was used in order to assess the responsiveness of each cell line towards the four chosen chemotactic factors. Immunohistochemistry was then performed for all five cell lines (cytospins) using antibodies directed toward CXCL1, CXCL8 and their receptors CXCR2 and CXCR1 respectively. Quantitative real-time PCR was then performed on all five cell lines in order to establish the presence of these four chemotactic factors. RESULTS: All five human uveal melanoma cell lines migrated towards the four chosen chemotactic factors at a level greater than that of the negative control. Chemokines CXCL1 and CXCL8 resulted in the greatest number of migrating cells in all five of our cell lines. Immunohistochemistry confirmed the expression of CXCL1, CXCL8, and their receptors CXCR2 and CXCR1 in all five of the cell lines. Quantitative real-time PCR results established expression of CXCL8, CXCL1, and HGF in all 5 cell lines tested. CXCL1 and CXCL8 are highly expressed in SP6.5 and UW-1. None of the five cell lines expressed any detectable levels of CXCL12. CONCLUSION: The migratory ability of the 5 human uveal melanoma cell lines was positively influenced by the four chemotactic factors tested, namely CXCL12, CXCL8, CXCL1, and HGF. Self-expression of chemotactic factors CXCL8, CXCL1, and HGF may indicate an autocrine system, which perhaps contributes to the cells' metastatic ability in vivo.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".