G-CSF supplementation with chemotherapy can promote revascularization and subsequent tumor regrowth: prevention by a CXCR4 antagonist
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recombinant granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is used to accelerate recovery from chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression. G-CSF has been recently shown to stimulate angiogenesis mediated by several types of bone marrow-derived cell populations. To investigate whether G-CSF may alter tumor response to therapy, we studied Lewis lung and EMT/6 breast carcinomas in mice treated with paclitaxel (PTX) chemotherapy in combination with G-CSF. We compared the results obtained to mice treated with PTX and AMD3100, a small-molecule drug antagonist of CXCR4 which, like G-CSF, can be used to mobilize hematopoietic cells. We show that PTX combined with G-CSF treatment facilitates revascularization, leading to an improvement in blood perfusion in LLC tumors, and a decrease in hypoxia in EMT/6 tumors, thus enhancing tumor growth in comparison to PTX or PTX and AMD3100 therapies. We found that hemangiocytes but not Gr-1(+) CD11b(+) cells colonize EMT/6 tumors after treatment with PTX and G-CSF, but not PTX and AMD3100, and therefore may contribute to angiogenesis. However, increases in hemangiocyte colonization were not observed in LLC PTX and G-CSF-treated tumors, suggesting distinct mechanisms of tumor revascularization after G-CSF. Overall, our observations suggest that despite its known considerable clinical benefits, G-CSF might contribute to tumor revascularization by various mechanisms, and diminish the antitumor activity of chemotherapy, an effect that can be prevented by AMD3100.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".