MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138706637 · doi:10.1158/0008-5472.can-10-2227

Telomerase Inhibition Potentiates the Effects of Genotoxic Agents in Breast and Colorectal Cancer Cells in a Cell Cycle–Specific Manner

2010· article· en· W2138706637 on OpenAlexaff
Raina Tamakawa, Helen B. Fleisig, Judy M.Y. Wong

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelomeres, Telomerase, and Senescence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTelomeraseDNA damageTelomereCancer researchEtoposideCell cycleBiologyTopoisomerase inhibitorTopoisomeraseDNA repairCancer cellCancerMolecular biologyDNAChemotherapyBiochemistryGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous studies have shown that telomerase facilitates DNA-damage repair and cell survival following stress. It is not clear how telomerase promotes DNA repair, or whether short-term telomerase inhibition, combined with genotoxic stress, can be exploited for cancer therapy. Here, we show that transient inhibition of telomerase activity by the specific inhibitor, GRN163L, increases the cytotoxicity of some, but not all, DNA-damaging agents. Such synergistic inhibition of growth requires the use of DNA-damaging agents that are toxic in the S/G(2) phase of the cell cycle. Notably, inhibition of Ataxia Telangiectasia Mutated (ATM) kinase, together with telomerase inhibition, synergistically increases the cytotoxicity induced by the G(2)-specific topoisomerase II inhibitor etoposide. By varying the timing of telomerase inhibition, relative to the timing of DNA damage, it is apparent that the prosurvival functions of telomerase occur at early stages of DNA damage recognition and repair. Our results suggest that the protective role of telomerase in cell cycle-restricted DNA damage repair could be exploited for combined anticancer chemotherapy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.339
Threshold uncertainty score0.687

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations54
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicTelomeres, Telomerase, and SenescenceFrench-language works237,207