MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100204192 · doi:10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-07-1392

Treatment of Human Colon Cancer Xenografts with TRA-8 Anti-death Receptor 5 Antibody Alone or in Combination with CPT-11

2008· article· en· W2100204192 on OpenAlexaff
Patsy G. Oliver, Albert F. LoBuglio, Kurt R. Zinn, Hyunki Kim, Nan Li, Tong Zhou, Wenquan Wang, Donald J. Buchsbaum

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Cancer Research · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCell death mechanisms and regulation
Canadian institutionsImmunovaccine (Canada)
FundersDaiichi Sankyo EuropeNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsCytotoxicityApoptosisIn vivoCancer researchFlow cytometryMonoclonal antibodyCell cultureBiodistributionProgrammed cell deathTumor necrosis factor alphaCancerColorectal cancerCancer cellIn vitroAntibodyMolecular biologyMedicinePathologyBiologyImmunologyInternal medicineBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: This study was designed to evaluate the in vitro cytotoxicity and in vivo efficacy of TRA-8, a mouse monoclonal antibody that binds to the DR5 death receptor for tumor necrosis factor-related apoptosis-inducing ligand (also called Apo2L), alone and in combination with CPT-11, against human colon cancer cells and xenografts. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: DR5 expression was assessed on human colon cancer cell lines using flow cytometry, and cellular cytotoxicity after TRA-8 treatment, alone and in combination with SN-38, was determined by measuring cellular ATP levels. Tumor growth inhibition and regression rates of well-established subcutaneous COLO 205, SW948, HCT116, and HT-29 colon cancer xenografts in athymic nude mice treated with TRA-8 or CPT-11 alone and in combination were determined. (99m)Tc-TRA-8 was used to examine tumor localization of TRA-8 in animals bearing each of the four xenografts. In addition, whole-body biodistribution and imaging was carried out in COLO 205-bearing animals using in vivo single-photon emission computed tomography imaging and tissue counting. RESULTS: DR5 expression was highest on HCT116, intermediate on SW948 and COLO 205 cells, and lowest on HT-29 cells. COLO 205 cells were the most sensitive to TRA-8-induced cytotoxicity in vitro, SW948 and HCT116 cell lines were moderately sensitive, and HT-29 cells were resistant. Combination treatment with TRA-8 and SN-38 produced additive to synergistic cytotoxicity against all cell lines compared with either single agent. The levels of apoptosis in all cell lines, including HT-29, were increased by combination treatment with SN-38. In vivo, combination therapy with TRA-8 and CPT-11 was superior to either single-agent regimen for three of the xenografts: COLO 205, SW948, and HCT116. COLO 205 tumors were most responsive to therapy with 73% complete regressions after combination therapy. HT-29 cells derived no antitumor efficacy from TRA-8 therapy. Tumor xenografts established from the four colon cancer cell lines had comparable specific localization of (99m)Tc-TRA-8. CONCLUSIONS: In vitro and in vivo effects of TRA-8 anti-DR5 monoclonal antibody on four different colon cancer cell lines and xenografts were quite variable. The HT-29 cell line had low surface DR5 expression and was resistant to TRA-8 both in vitro and in vivo. Three cell lines (COLO 205, SW948, and HCT116) exhibited moderate to high sensitivity to TRA-8-mediated cytotoxicity which was further enhanced by the addition of SN-38, the active metabolite of CPT-11. In vivo, the combination of TRA-8 and CPT-11 treatment produced the highest antitumor efficacy against xenografts established from the three TRA-8-sensitive tumor cell lines. All four colon cancer xenografts had comparable localization of (99m)Tc-TRA-8. These studies support the strategy of TRA-8/CPT-11 combined treatment in human colon cancer clinical trials.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.161
GPT teacher head0.485
Teacher spread0.324 · 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

Citations35
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Cancer ResearchSame topicCell death mechanisms and regulationFrench-language works237,207