Dihydroceramide accumulation and reactive oxygen species are distinct and nonessential events in 4-HPR-mediated leukemia cell death
Bibliographic record
Abstract
4-(Hydroxyphenyl)retinamide (4-HPR) is a synthetic retinoid with a strong apoptotic effect towards different cancer cell lines in vitro, and it is currently tested in clinical trials. Increases of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and modulation of endogenous sphingolipid levels are well-described events observed upon 4-HPR treatment, but there is still a lack of understanding of their relationship and their contribution to cell death. LC-MS analysis of sphingolipids revealed that in human leukemia CCRF-CEM and Jurkat cells, 4-HPR induced dihydroceramide but not ceramide accumulation even at sublethal concentrations. Myriocin prevented the 4-HPR-induced dihydroceramide accumulation, but it did not prevent the loss of viability and increase of intracellular ROS production. On the other hand, ascorbic acid, Trolox, and vitamin E reversed 4-HPR effects on cell death but not dihydroceramide accumulation. NDGA, described as a lipoxygenase inhibitor, exerted a significantly higher antioxidant activity than vitamin E and abrogated 4-HPR-mediated ROS. It did not however rescue cellular viability. Taken together, this study demonstrates that early changes observed upon 4-HPR treatment, i.e., sphingolipid modulation and ROS production, are mechanistically independent events. Furthermore, the results indicate that 4-HPR-driven cell death may occur even in the absence of dihydroceramide or ROS accumulation. These observations should be taken into account for an improved design of drug combinations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".