MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997464162 · doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6603010

Inhibition of endosomal sequestration of basic anticancer drugs: influence on cytotoxicity and tissue penetration

2006· article· en· W1997464162 on OpenAlexaff
C M Lee, Ian F. Tannock

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Cancer · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDrug Transport and Resistance Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBafilomycinCytotoxicityEndosomePharmacologyChloroquineDoxorubicinClonogenic assayChemistryMitoxantroneCancer researchBiologyApoptosisChemotherapyCellImmunologyBiochemistryIn vitroAutophagy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The basic drugs doxorubicin and mitoxantrone are known to be concentrated in acidic endosomes of cells. Here, we address the hypotheses that raising endosomal pH with the modifying agents chloroquine, omeprazole or bafilomycin A might decrease sequestration of anticancer drugs in endosomes, thereby increasing their cytotoxicity and availability for tissue penetration. Chloroquine, omeprazole and bafilomycin A showed concentration-dependent effects to raise endosomal pH, and to inhibit sequestration of doxorubicin in endosomes. Chloroquine and omeprazole but not bafilomycin A decreased the net uptake of doxorubicin into cells, but there was no significant effect on uptake of mitoxantrone. Omeprazole and bafilomycin A increased the cytotoxicity of the anticancer drugs for cultured cells, as measured in a clonogenic assay, whereas chloroquine had minimal effects on cytotoxicity despite reduced uptake of doxorubicin. Omeprazole but not chloroquine or bafilomycin A increased the penetration of anticancer drugs through multicellular layers of tumour tissue. We conclude that modifiers of endosomal pH might increase therapeutic effectiveness of basic drugs by increasing their toxicity and/or tissue penetration in solid tumours.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.365
Threshold uncertainty score0.321

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations96
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of CancerSame topicDrug Transport and Resistance MechanismsFrench-language works237,207