MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168880860

Effect of post-initiation induction of NQO1 by oltipraz on AOM induced colon tumor formation in Sprague-Dawley rats

2005· article· en· W2168880860 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kosala Sivananthan, Ranjana P. Bird, Andrew W. Maksymiuk, Georgia Lefas, Asher Begleiter

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics, phytochemicals, and oxidative stress
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAzoxymethaneCarcinogenChemistryAberrant crypt fociEnzymeCarcinogenesisGlutathioneAnticarcinogenEnzyme inducerPharmacologyColorectal cancerInternal medicineEndocrinologyBiochemistryCancerBiologyMedicineGeneColonic disease
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Proc Amer Assoc Cancer Res, Volume 46, 2005 2476 Phase II detoxifying enzymes like NADP(H):quinone oxidoreductase 1 (NQO1), glutathione S-transferases (GST) and UDP-glucuronyltransferases (UGT) may prevent carcinogen-induced cancers. Inducers of phase II detoxifying enzymes have been shown to inhibit carcinogen induced colon tumors in rat and mouse models, but the role of NQO1 in these effects was not clearly defined. We showed that oltipraz fed to Sprague-Dawley rats prior to treatment with a colon carcinogen increased NQO1 activity in the colons, without increasing GST or UGT activities, and decreased the number of aberrant crypt foci (ACF) in the colons of these rats. This was the first direct evidence that induction of NQO1 alone can inhibit initiation of colon carcinogenesis. Since oltipraz selectively induced NQO1 in these Sprague-Dawley rats without inducing other phase II detoxifying enzymes, this represents a unique model to study the role of NQO1 in colon carcinogenesis without interference from other phase II enzymes. Previous studies have shown that post-initiation administration of phase II enzyme inducers can also inhibit colon tumor formation in rats. Using the oltipraz fed Sprague-Dawley rat model, we investigated whether selective induction of NQO1 by oltipraz after treatment with the colon carcinogen azoxymethane (AOM) could also inhibit colon tumor formation. Rats were injected with 15 mg/kg AOM weekly for 2 weeks and then were fed control diet or oltipraz diet (control diet containing 200 ppm oltipraz) for 29 weeks. NQO1 activity was increased 2-fold in the colons of rats fed oltipraz diet compared with rats fed control diet, but the oltipraz diet did not increase GST or UGT activities. Rats fed oltipraz diet had 58% fewer ACF than control fed rats at 12 weeks after AOM treatment (p<0.001). However, there was no significant difference in the distribution of crypt multiplicities in the two groups. The frequency of microadenomas in oltipraz fed rats after 29 weeks was 1.07 ± 0.15/rat, while that in control fed rats was 1.87 ± 0.23/rat and this difference was statistically significant (p<0.003). The tumor frequency at 29 weeks was 0.37 ± 0.08/rat in rats fed oltipraz diet and 0.47 ± 0.09/rat in rats fed control diet, while the proportion of animals that developed colon tumors was 0.30 ± 0.05 in oltipraz fed rats and 0.37 ± 0.06 in control fed rats. Although the oltipraz fed rats had a lower tumor frequency and a lower tumor incidence than control fed rats the differences were not statistically significant. The median tumor volume was 432 mm3 in oltipraz fed rats and 219 mm3 in control fed rats. These results suggest that post-initiation induction of NQO1 can inhibit the early stages of colon carcinogenesis, but that this may not inhibit actual tumor formation. In addition, NQO1 induction may promote the growth of tumors once they have developed. (Supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and CancerCare Manitoba Foundation)

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.340 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations3
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicGenomics, phytochemicals, and oxidative stressFrench-language works237,207