Evidence for a secreted chemorepellent that directs glioma cell invasion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Secreted chemotropic cues guide the migration of neuronal and glial cell precursors during neural development. It is not known if chemotropism contributes to directing the invasion of brain tissue by glioma cells. A model system has been developed that allows quantification of invasive behavior using gliomas spheroids embedded in collagen gels. Here we provide evidence that glioma spheroids secrete a chemorepellent factor(s) that directs cells away from the spheroid and into the collagen matrix. The relationship between total invasion, cell number, and implantation distance suggests that glioma cells respond to a gradient of the chemorepellent cue(s) that is well established at 48 h. C6 astrocytoma cells normally invade the collagen at an angle perpendicular to the spheroid edge. In contrast, an adjacent spheroid causes cells to turn away from their normal trajectory and slow their rate of invasion. Astrocytoma cells are repelled by an adjacent glioma spheroid but rapidly infiltrate astrocyte aggregates, indicating that astrocytes do not express the repellent cue. Uniform concentrations of repellent factor(s) in spheroid conditioned medium overwhelm endogenous gradients and render glioma cells less able to exhibit this chemotropic response. Concentration gradients of spheroid conditioned medium in cell migration assays also demonstrate the chemorepellent cue(s)'s tropic effect. Our findings indicate that glioma spheroids produce a secreted diffusible cue(s) that promotes glioma cell invasion. Identification of this factor(s) may advance current therapies that aim to limit tumor cell invasion.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".