MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2182736412 · doi:10.1158/1535-7163.1525.3.12

Erythropoietin induces cancer cell resistance to ionizing radiation and to cisplatin

2004· article· en· W2182736412 on OpenAlexaff
Sasha Belenkov, George Shenouda, Ekatarina Rizhevskaya, Denis Cournoyer, Jean-Philippe Belzile, Luís Souhami, Slobodan Dević, Terry Chow

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Cancer Therapeutics · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicErythropoietin and Anemia Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsErythropoietinErythropoietin receptorCancer researchCisplatinCancer cellCell cultureCancerIonizing radiationBiologyChemotherapyEndocrinologyIrradiationGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent studies suggest that erythropoietin plays an important role in the process of neoplastic transformation and malignant phenotype progression observed in malignancy. To study the role of erythropoietin and its receptor (EPOR) on the response of cancer cells in vitro, we used two solid tumor cell lines, namely the human malignant glioma cell line U87 and the primary cervical cancer cell line HT100. All experiments were done with heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum in order to inactivate any endogenous bovine erythropoietin. The expression of the EPOR in these cells was confirmed with immunoblot techniques. The addition of exogenous recombinant human erythropoietin (rhEPO) induces the cancer cells to become more resistant to ionizing radiation and to cisplatin. Furthermore, this rhEPO-induced resistance to ionizing radiation and to cisplatin was reversed by the addition of tyrphostin (AG490), an inhibitor of JAK2. Our findings indicate that rhEPO result in a significant, JAK2-dependent, in vitro resistance to ionizing radiation and to cisplatin in the human cancer cells lines studied in this report.

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)0.000
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 score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.802

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.307
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Citations85
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular Cancer TherapeuticsSame topicErythropoietin and Anemia TreatmentFrench-language works237,207