EXPRESSION OF MULTIDRUG RESISTANCE-RELATED PROTEIN (MRP-1), LUNG RESISTANCE-RELATED PROTEIN (LRP) AND TOPOISOMERASE-II (TOPO-II) IN WILMS' TUMOR: IMMUNOHISTOCHEMICAL STUDY USING TMA METHODOLOGY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: MRP-1, LRP and TOPO-II are all associated with protection of the cells from the adverse effects of various chemotherapeutics. The aim of this study was to measure the expression of these proteins in Wilms' tumor (WT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: TMA block was constructed from 14 samples of WT's and from xenografts derived from them. Sections of the TMA were used for immunostaining against MRP-1, LRP and TOPO-IIa. RESULTS: All normal kidneys expressed MRP-1 but were either weakly or negatively stained for LRP and TOPO-IIa. In WT samples, MRP-1 was universally expressed, exclusively in the tubular component, while there was no expression of LRP and TOPO-IIa showed heterogeneous distribution. The xenografts varied in their MRP-1 and TOPO-IIa expression and exhibited weak/negative staining of LRP. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that although all the proteins evaluated, had different expression patterns in the tumor samples, the most prominent changes in expression were found for MRP-1. The exact clinical implications of these changes in expression and their relevance to the resistance of these tumors to chemotherapy requires further investigation. The finding of different expression profiles for the multidrug resistance proteins in the original WT's and their xenografts suggests that the results of animal cancer models may be difficult to interpret.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".