MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1946761126 · doi:10.3332/ecancer.2013.336

ecancermedicalscience

2016· article· en· W1946761126 on OpenAlexaff
Patrick Logan, Julia V. Burnier, Miguel N. Burnier

Bibliographic record

Venueecancermedicalscience · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBevacizumabMedicineVascular endothelial growth factorCancer researchAngiogenesisCell cultureMolecular biologyImmunologyVEGF receptorsBiologyInternal medicineChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Uveal melanoma (UM) is a disease that affects approximately five people per million in the United States. This disease metastasises predominantly to the liver, and treatment options following the clinical detection of these sequelae are limited. Vascular endothelial growth factor-A (VEGF-A) is the primary activator of tumour angiogenesis and functions by binding to VEGF-Receptor 2 (VEGF-R2) and is often required for tumour growth beyond 2-3 mm. The purpose of this study was to investigate the expression of VEGF-A and the primary VEGF-R2 in three UM cell lines. Furthermore, we investigated the effects of VEGF-A inhibition on receptor activation and production of other cytokines. Finally, the effects of VEGF-A inhibition on the proliferation, migration, and invasion in the cell lines were ascertained. MATERIALS: Three UM cell lines (92.1, OCM-1, and UW-1) were incubated with and without the addition of 100 μg/mL of bevacizumab. VEGF-A expression under both conditions was determined by sandwich enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and phosphorylated VEGF-R2 expression was determined using western blot. The effects of VEGF-A inhibition on 20 cytokines (IL-1a, IL-2, IL-5, IL-8, IL-12p70, GM-CSF, IFNy, CCL3, MMP-9, TNF-a, IL-1b, IL-4, IL-6, IL-10, IL-13, GRO, MCP-1, MIP-1b, and RANTES) were determined using a multiplex sandwich ELISA. Proliferation rates before and after treatment were evaluated via sulforhodamine B assay, and migration and invasion assays implementing the Boyden chamber technique, the latter with artificial extracellular matrix, were used to assess their respective abilities. The Student's t-test was used to compare changes in cytokine expression following VEGF-A inhibition. Analysis of variance was used to compare changes in the functional abilities of three uveal melanoma cell lines following VEGF-A inhibition. A P-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: All three cell lines produced copious amounts of VEGF-A in culture (92.1, 11785.5 ± 231.8 pg/μL; OCM-1, 4608.0 ± 324.0 pg/μL; UW-1, 8309.3 ± 634.5 pg/μL), which was reduced to undetectable levels following the administration of bevacizumab (P< 0.05). Similarly, detectable phosphorylated VEGF-R2 was present in all cells, which was reduced significantly in all cell lines following bevacizumab treatment (107525.2 ± 8602.0 versus 1024.5 ± 98.2, 46587.3 ± 4192.9 versus 12821.1 ± 1666.7, and 60394.3 ± 4026.4 versus 6908.2 ± 607.2; 92.1, OCM-1, and UW-1, respectively; P< 0.05). Of the cytokines investigated, only MMP-9 and CCL3 were ubiquitously altered across all three cell lines following bevacizumab treatment; they were upregulated (CCL3: 1072.50 ± 18.77 pg/mL versus 1281.00 ± 72.34 pg/mL; 22.5 ± 7.85 pg/mL versus 62.00 ± 9.16 pg/mL; 20.33 ± 6.35 pg/mL versus 35.00 ± 6.22 pg/mL; control versus bevacizumab; MMP-9: 25.50 ± 5.47 pg/mL versus 88.25 ± 13.38 pg/mL; 19.75 ± 4.14 pg/mL versus 45.25 ± 8.36 pg/mL; 3.25 ± 1.09 pg/mL versus 19.25 ± 3.77 pg/mL; control versus bevacizumab; 92.1, OCM-1, and UW-1, respectively; P< 0.05). Bevacizumab significantly reduced the proliferation of one cell line (92.1: 0.405 ± 0.012 versus 0.509 ± 0.033; bevacizumab versus control; values OD; P< 0.05), the migration of two cell lines (92.1: 0.071 ± 0.003 versus 0.115 ± 0.003; OCM-1: 0.049 ± 0.005 versus 0.117 ± 0.014; bevacizumab versus control; values OD; P< 0.05), and did not significantly affect invasion. CONCLUSION: Despite the significant reduction in phosphorylated VEGF-R2 levels, bevacizumab did not have a dramatic impact on the functional abilities of the three UM cell lines studied. Our results indicate that compensatory mechanisms, such as the upregulation of MMP-9 and CCL-3, following bevacizumab administration may mitigate its effects on these abilities.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.221
Threshold uncertainty score0.315

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.7790.680

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.266 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations17
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueecancermedicalscienceFrench-language works237,207