Comparison of the X-Radiation, Drug and Ultraviolet-Radiation Responses of Clones Isolated from a Human Colorectal Tumor Cell Line
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We isolated several clones with a wide range of responses to X radiation from an unirradiated human colorectal (HCT 116) tumor cell line. The responses of one of these clones (HCT116-Clone10) and nine other clones to either fractionated or acute (i.e. single, nonfractionated doses) X irradiation in vitro was similar to that of the parental cell line. By contrast, after the same types of treatment, another clone (HCT116-Clone2) manifested a significantly increased survival whereas a third clone (HCT116-CloneK) manifested a significantly decreased survival relative to the parental cell line. This suggested that they were, respectively, a radioresistant and a radiosensitive clone. All three clones (clones 2, 10, K) retained their tumorigenic phenotype and formed tumors in nude mice. G-banding studies demonstrated that they were of human origin and were derived from the same parental cell line. The metaphases of HCT116-Clone2 demonstrated features commonly associated with genomic instability (i.e. mitotic catastrophe including chromosome and chromatid breaks, dicentrics and additional nonclonal markers). Data obtained by quantitative fluorescence in situ hybridization (Q- FISH) analysis failed to demonstrate any apparent correlation between the radiosensitivity and the relative telomere content of these three clones. Interestingly, HCT116-CloneK was the most resistant to several chemotherapeutic drugs (topotecan, camptothecin, etoposide and cisplatin) with diverse mechanisms of action. Also, there were no significant differences in the survivals of the three clones after treatment with UV radiation. Because of the lack of overlap among the relative sensitivities of these clones to X radiation, chemotherapeutic drugs and UV radiation, these clones may be useful models for evaluating the genetic basis of the response of human tumor cells to these treatment agents both in vitro and in vivo.
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) | 0.000 | 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".