A Perspective on the Comparative Antileukemic Activity of 5-Aza-2′-deoxycytidine (Decitabine) and 5-Azacytidine (Vidaza)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
5-Aza-2'-deoxycytidine (5-AZA-CdR, decitabine, Dacogen®) and 5-azacytidine (5-AC, Vidaza®) are epigenetic agents that have been approved for the clinical treatment of the hematological malignancy myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and are currently under clinical evaluation for the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Most investigators currently classify 5-AZA-CdR and 5-AC as inhibitors of DNA methylation, which can reactivate tumor suppressor genes silenced by this epigenetic event. Examination of the pharmacology of these analogues reveals important differences with respect to their molecular mechanism of action. The action of 5-AZA-CdR is due to its incorporation into DNA. 5-AC is a riboside analogue that is incorporated primarily into RNA. A small fraction of 5-AC is converted to its deoxyribose form by ribonucleotide reductase and subsequently incorporated into DNA. The incorporation of 5-AC into RNA can interfere with the biological function of RNA and result in an inhibition protein synthesis. Microarray analysis revealed that both these analogues target the expression of different cohorts of genes. Preclinical studies show that 5-AZA-CdR is a more effective antileukemic agent than 5-AC. One explanation for this observation is that 5-AC blocks the progression of some leukemic cells from G1 into S phase, and this protects these cells from the chemotherapeutic action of this riboside analogue related to its incorporation into DNA. However, differences in chemotherapeutic efficacy of these related analogues have not been clearly demonstrated in clinical trials in patients with hematological malignancies. These observations should be taken into consideration in the design of new clinical trials using 5-AZA-CdR or 5-AC in patients with MDS and AML.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".