Abstract 5157: A role of the FGF-pathway in the VEGF/VEGFR targeting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: The growth of new blood vessels is regulated at multiple steps by interactions between several pro- and antiangiogenic factors. We believe that the angiogenesis induced by basic fibroblast growth factor (bFGF) is resistant to anti-VEGF/VEGFR (vascular endothelial growth factor/receptor) therapy. Methods: The Corneal Micro Pocket Assay was performed. 70 Charles River female C57BL/6 mice (age at start day, 6 weeks) were randomized to 7 arms (10 mice in each group): 1) bFGF; 2) VEGF-A; 3) bFGF negative, VEGF-A negative; 4) bFGF and sunitinib; 5) VEGF-A and sunitinib; 6) bFGF and bevacizumab; 7) VEGF-A and bevacizumab. Doses of bFGF, VEGF-A (R&D Systems), sunitinib (Pfizer), and bevacizumab (Roche) were 200 ng, 400 ng, 10 mg/kg, 50 mg/kg per animal, respectively. Hydron pellets preparation, surgical procedure, and quantification of angiogenesis (angiogenic score) were performed as previously reported (Kenyon BM et al.). Statistical significance was determined by the Student's t test. Results: There was no neovascularization in bFGF negative, VEGF-A negative group (mean, 0). The effect of 200 ng/pellet of bFGF (mean, 4.2; SEM, 0.05) was compared with that of 400 ng/pellet VEGF-A (mean, 4.08; SEM, 0.09), P=0.7. In bFGF-induced angiogenesis, sunitinib (mean, 3.9; SEM, 0.1; P=0.2) and bevacizumab (mean, 4.71; SEM, 0.33; P=0.85) did not impact on neovascularization in comparison with bFGF positive control. The angiogenic effect of VEGF-A was significantly inhibited by both sunitinib (mean, 0.38; SEM, 0.06; P=0.001) and bevacizumab (mean, 0.75; SEM, 0.05; P=0.001) in comparison with VEGF-A positive control. No significant differences between 2 targeted agents in bFGF and VEGF-A models were obtained. Conclusion: Our recent findings demonstrate that anti-VEGF(R) therapy significantly impacts on VEGF-A-induced angiogenesis and not on bFGF-induced neovascularization. Further studies are needed to assess the role of FGF-pathway in resistance to VEGF(R) therapy. The study was supported by Terry Fox Foundation. Citation Format: {Authors}. {Abstract title} [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 102nd Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2011 Apr 2-6; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2011;71(8 Suppl):Abstract nr 5157. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2011-5157
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".