MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1995922001 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.am2013-86

Abstract 86: Prolactin and testosterone induction of carboxypeptidase-D to promote cell survival is greater in prostate cancer cells than benign prostate cells, and their synergistic action in prostate cancer cells is effectively blocked by receptor antagonists Δ1-9-G129R and flutamide.

2013· article· en· W1995922001 on OpenAlexaff
Catherine K.L. Too, Lynn N. Thomas, Jennifer Merrimen

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLNCaPProstate cancerProstateEndocrinologyAndrogen receptorProlactinDownregulation and upregulationCancer researchInternal medicinePCA3Testosterone (patch)ReceptorCell cultureChemistryBiologyMedicineCancerHormoneBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Carboxypeptidase-D (CPD), a membrane-bound metalloproteinase, cleaves C-terminal arginine, which is the substrate of nitric oxide synthase for production of nitric oxide (NO). NO regulates many cellular processes including tumor progression. We have reported that CPD and NO levels were upregulated by testosterone (T) or prolactin (PRL) to enhance survival of prostate cancer (pCa) cells. This study further characterized T/PRL regulation of CPD expression. CPD and NO levels in benign and malignant prostate cells/tissues were compared to determine their roles in pCa development. Methods: Quantitative RT-PCR (QPCR) was used to measure CPD mRNA levels in human prostate cell lines. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) and tissue microarray (TMA) analysis were used to compare CPD staining in prostate specimens. NO production was measured using 4,5-diaminofluorescein diacetate (DAF-2DA) assay. Results: QPCR analysis showed that CPD mRNA levels were not significantly altered in the benign prostate cell lines BPH-1 and RWPE1, as compared to a 3-4-fold increase in the pCa cell line LNCaP, following T or PRL treatment (P<0.01, n=3-6). T or PRL caused similar increases in other pCa cell lines (22Rv1, MDAPCa2b and PC-3), in which the androgen receptor (AR) and/or PRL receptor (PRLR) were expressed. DAF-2DA assays showed that NO levels were increased <1.6-fold in benign cells, compared to >3.5-fold in LNCaP cells after T/PRL stimulation. In LNCaP cells, T and PRL acted synergistically to upregulate NO, but were maximally suppressed when both receptors were inhibited with flutamide and Δ1-9-G129R in combination. Consistent with these results, TMA analysis showed significantly increased CPD staining from 8.9±3.8% (mean±SEM, n=18) of benign epithelial cell area to 30.9±2.9% (n=79) of tumor cell area (P<0.001). Endothelial cells in blood vessels associated with tumor were more likely to show positive staining than vessels of benign tissue (P<0.0001). A second TMA also showed increased CPD staining from 5.6±0.9% (n=48) in benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) to 17.9±2.1% (n=88) in pCa. TMA results were corroborated by IHC assessment of large (≥50mm2) prostate tissues from 35 men, where CPD staining increased from 13.1±2.9% in BPH to 29.5±4.4% in pCa. Conclusion: T/PRL-stimulated CPD mRNA levels were higher in tumor than in benign prostate cell lines. Likewise, CPD protein levels were higher in cancer than benign prostate specimens. Elevated CPD levels increased NO production, which was maximally suppressed when both the AR and PRLR were inhibited. Our results suggest that inhibition of both the AR and PRLR may be a more effective treatment for pCa and implicate the potential usefulness of the CPD-Arg-NO pathway as a therapeutic target for pCa. Citation Format: Catherine K. L. Too, Lynn N. Thomas, Jennifer Merrimen. Prolactin and testosterone induction of carboxypeptidase-D to promote cell survival is greater in prostate cancer cells than benign prostate cells, and their synergistic action in prostate cancer cells is effectively blocked by receptor antagonists Δ1-9-G129R and flutamide. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 104th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2013 Apr 6-10; Washington, DC. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2013;73(8 Suppl):Abstract nr 86. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2013-86

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.297 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Research→Same topicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research→French-language works237,207→