Synergistic Cytotoxicity of Pyrazoloacridine with Doxorubicin, Etoposide, and Topotecan in Drug-Resistant Tumor Cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pyrazoloacridine (NSC 366140, PD115934, PZA) is a new class of acridine anticancer agents under investigation in Phase II clinical trials in patients with advanced cancers. Although poor responses in patients to the treatment with PZA alone have been observed, this class of agents remains of interest because of its distinct mechanism of action from other topoisomerase poisons. Therefore, the combination of PZA with conventional anticancer agents presents an attractive approach to treat drug-resistant human tumors. In the present study, the cytotoxic effects of PZA combined with doxorubicin, topotecan, and etoposide were determined using paired parental and doxorubicin-resistant human colon carcinoma (SW-620 and SW620/AD-300) and breast cancer cell lines (MCF-7 and MCF-7/TH). Cytotoxicity was measured by soft agar clonogenic assays. Dose effect and combination effects were analyzed by the method of Chou and Talalay. The combination of PZA with doxorubicin, topotecan, and etoposide in fixed ratios demonstrated synergistic cytotoxicity on both SW-620 and SW620/AD-300 cell lines. The combination of PZA with doxorubicin also exhibited synergistic cytotoxicity against both MCF-7 and MCF-7/TH cell lines. The mechanism of synergism appeared independent of topoisomerase I and II inhibition, and interference with protein-DNA complexes. Strategies to define optimal drug combinations are proving to be of significant value when considering potential clinical applications of new and established agents.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".