Evaluation of cell survival, DNA double strand breaks, and DNA synthesis during concurrent camptothecin and X‐radiation treatments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We evaluated cell survival, DNA double strand breaks (dsbs), and DNA synthesis following camptothecin (CPT) alone or concurrent CPT and X-radiation treatments in exponential-phase cultures of a radioresistant human melanoma cell line. Cell survival was measured by a clonogenic assay. DNA dsbs were measured by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis. DNA synthesis was measured by incorporation of (3)H-thymidine. We found that (i) concurrent CPT and X-radiation interacted additively, unlike previous results with plateau-phase cultures of these cells, which showed synergistic interaction; (ii) there were strong negative correlations (correlation coefficients of at least 0.82) between clonogenic surviving fractions and DNA dsbs following CPT alone or concurrent CPT and radiation treatments; and (iii) concurrent CPT and radiation (10 Gy) treatment did not completely inhibit DNA synthesis, even though addition of radiation to CPT did further decrease DNA synthesis (relative to CPT alone) at CPT concentrations below 20 microM. Our results suggest that during concurrent CPT and radiation treatment residual DNA dsb levels were good indicators of cell killing and that the absence of complete inhibition of DNA synthesis could at least in part explain the additive interaction between CPT and radiation.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".