MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract C161: Modulation of thymidine phosphorylase (TP) expression in breast cancer cell lines exposed to the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor ZD1839

2009· article· en· W2018891796 on OpenAlexaff
Maria Ait‐Tihyaty, Zakaria Rachid, Bertrand J. Jean‐Claude

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Cancer Therapeutics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Treatment and Pharmacology
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThymidine phosphorylaseSKBR3PharmacologyCytidine deaminaseCell growthCancer researchCapecitabineEpidermal growth factor receptorCancerGrowth inhibitionChemistryBiologyCancer cellInternal medicineBiochemistryMedicineColorectal cancerEnzyme

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Capecitabine is a potent antitumor drug used in the treatment of many types of cancer such as bowel, breast and stomach cancer. It is administered orally and is first metabolized in the liver by carboxylesterase to generate 5′-deoxy-5-flurocytidine ribose (5′-DFCR) that is subsequently converted to 5′-deoxy-5-fluorouridine ribose (5′-DFUR) by cytidine deaminase. While 5′-DFCR can be further converted to 5′-DFUR in tumor or normal tissues, the conversion of 5′-DFUR to the cytotoxic inhibitor of DNA synthesis 5-FU, is catalyzed by thymidine phosphorylase (TP), which is highly expressed in tumors. Factors modulating the TP levels in tumors are not well understood, however, recent reports suggest that drugs such as taxol and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors could induce an increase in TP levels in tumor cells. Here, we sought to determine whether inhibition of EGFR could modulate the levels of TP in a panel of six breast cancer cell lines with varied levels of sensitivity to ZD1839, an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Three of the cell lines used in the study (SUM 149, BT474, SKBR3) are commonly classified as sensitive to ZD1839 and the others are known to be moderately sensitive or resistant (MDA-MB 468, BT20, BT549). All cell lines were studied according to two different treatment conditions: either they were provided with DMEM medium supplemented with FBS or starved and subsequently stimulated with 8 nM EGF for 1h. Furthermore, we investigated the in vitro growth inhibitory potency of 5′-DFUR (a Capecitabine metabolite) and ZD1839 in the panel of cell lines. The results showed that: (1) following exposure to 10 µM of ZD1839 for 24h, cells pre-incubated with serum-containing medium did not exhibit a significant change in TP levels. (2) in contrast, all cells starved for 24h and subsequently given 10 µM of ZD1839 for 24h showed varied levels of increase in TP (1.2- to 4.7-fold) except SUM149 in which TP levels remained high, before and after EGF stimulation. BT549, the most ZD1839 resistant cell line showed a low TP expression with no increase after treatment. (3) IC50 values were in agreement with the known levels of sensitivity of all the cell lines ZD1839 and TP expression correlated with cell line sensitivity to 5′DFUR but not to ZD1839. The results in toto suggest that basal and stimulated levels of TP vary among breast cancer cell lines and that EGFR inhibition induces an increase in TP expression in the latter cells. TP induction was mostly seen in cells that were starved, treated with ZD1839 and stimulated with EGF. This suggests that starved cells perhaps synchronized in G0–G1 phase, upon EGF-stimulation may have entered S phase, a cell cycle phase where TP expression is known to reach its maximum. Further studies are ongoing to investigate the sensitivity of the cell panel to ZD1839, 5′DFUR and their corresponding combination. Citation Information: Mol Cancer Ther 2009;8(12 Suppl):C161.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0020.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.282 · 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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular Cancer TherapeuticsSame topicCancer Treatment and PharmacologyFrench-language works237,207