Evidence against apoptosis as a major mechanism for reproductive cell death following treatment of cell lines with anti-cancer drugs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An increase in apoptotic cells may be observed after treatment with chemotherapy, and many authors have assumed that anti-cancer drugs kill cells by inducing apoptosis. The most relevant endpoint of cell death following treatment of tumour cells is loss of reproductive ability as measured by a colony-forming assay, since cells with limited reproductive potential cannot regenerate a tumour. We have therefore investigated the relationship between apoptosis and reproductive cell death following in vitro treatment of mammalian cell lines with anti-cancer drugs. Markers of apoptosis (DNA ladders, TUNEL assay) were evaluated at various times after treatment of Chinese Hamster Ovary (CHO) cells, human bladder cancer MGH-U1 cells, and a murine T-lymphocytic cell line (CTLL-2) with several anti-cancer drugs. These markers were found infrequently, despite the use of doses that cause loss of colony-forming ability, except in CTLL-2 cells. We also transfected and expressed the human pro-apoptotic gene bax and the anti-apoptotic gene bcl-2 in MGH-U1 cells and compared cell survival after drug treatment with that of control cells transfected with the vector alone. Expression of these genes had at most small effects to influence cell survival. We conclude that apoptotic mechanisms had at most a minor role in leading to reproductive death of MGH-U1 and CHO cells after chemotherapy. When apoptosis is observed following treatment with anti-cancer drugs it may be a secondary event which occurs in lethally-damaged cells, leading to their lysis, rather than a primary event that leads to loss of reproductive integrity.
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) | 0.001 | 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".