MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022323055 · doi:10.1002/jcp.21044

Acute <scp>L</scp>‐glutamine deprivation compromises VEGF‐a upregulation in A549/8 human carcinoma cells

2007· article· en· W2022323055 on OpenAlexaff
Benjamin Drogat, Marion Bouchecareilh, Sophie North, Cyril Petibois, Gérard Déléris, Éric Chevet, Andréas Bikfalvi, Michel Moenner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cellular Physiology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer, Hypoxia, and Metabolism
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlutamineDownregulation and upregulationAngiogenesisHypoxia (environmental)ApoptosisBiologyGlutamine synthetaseEndocrinologyCancer researchInternal medicineChemistryBiochemistryMedicineAmino acid

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tumor ischemia participates in angiogenesis and cancer progression through cellular responses to hypoxia and nutrient deprivation. However, the contribution of amino acids limitation to this process remains poorly understood. Using serum-free cell culture conditions, we tested the impact of L-glutamine deprivation on metabolic and angiogenic responses in A549/8 carcinoma cells. In these cells, lowering glutamine concentration modified the cell cycle distribution and significantly induced apoptosis/necrosis. Although glutamine deprivation led to a HIF-independent increase in VEGF-A mRNA, the corresponding protein level remained low and correlated with the inhibition of protein synthesis and activation of the GCN2/eIF2alpha pathway. Limitation of glutamine availability also hampers hypoxia- and hypoglycemia-induced VEGF-A protein upregulation. Thus, glutamine deprivation may have no direct effect on VEGF-dependent angiogenesis, compared to hypoxia or to glucose deprivation, and may instead be detrimental to cancer progression by antagonizing ischemia-induced stresses.

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 score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score0.726

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations56
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cellular PhysiologySame topicCancer, Hypoxia, and MetabolismFrench-language works237,207