Mechanism of apoptotic effects induced selectively by ursodeoxycholic acid on human hepatoma cell lines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To investigate the effects of ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) on apoptosis and proliferation of hepatoma cell lines. METHODS: Human hepatoma cell lines HepG2 and BEL 7402 were cultured in medium supplemented with different concentrations of UDCA, normal human hepatic line L-02 was used as control. Cell proliferation, apoptosis and gene expression were detected using methyl thiazolyl tetrazolium (MTT) assay, flow cytometry, Western blot, DNA ladder assay, electron microscopy, and immunocytochemistry. RESULTS: Ursodeoxycholic acid inhibited the proliferation of HepG2 and BEL7402 cell lines in a dose-dependent manner. Ursodeoxycholic acid can change cell cycle distribution of HepG2 and BEL7402, the proportion of cells in G0-G1 phase increased whereas the proportion of S phase cells and G2-M phase cells decreased. Ursodeoxycholic acid arrested the cell cycle in G0-G1 phase by down-regulating the cell cycle related proteins cyclin D1, D3 and retinoblastoma protein (p(Rb)). The apoptotic rates of HepG2 and BEL7402 treated with UDCA (1.0 mmol/L) were significantly higher than those of control. In the HepG2 and BEL7402 treated with UDCA, expression of bcl-2 decreased whereas expression of Bax increased, the nuclear fragmentation and chromosomal condensed, cells shrank and lost attachment, apoptotic bodies and DNA ladders appeared. UDCA had no effect in inducing apoptosis on L-02 cell lines. CONCLUSION: UDCA can selectively inhibit proliferation and induce apoptosis of HepG2 and BEL7402 cell lines by blocking cell cycle and regulating the expression of Bax/bcl-2 genes.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".