8-Cl-cAMP, The Old Dog with New Tricks: A Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current chemotherapeutic drugs act for the most part by killing cancer cells directly. Treatment with these drugs often can be harmful to normal cells and may cause incomplete elimination of the target cells, resulting in the recurrence of the disease. To coop with current treatments the path of biomodulation rather than cytotoxicity, has been seen in the role of cAMP in normal versus malignant cells. It has been found that an increase of cAMP levels in normal cells stimulates proliferation, and that in the same time cancerous cells are inhibited to proliferate. This inverted reaction has given the momentum for synthesis of various cAMP analogues and investigation of there antitumor activity. A number of analogues, such as 8-PIP-cAMP, 8-Br-CAMP or 8-HA-cAMP showed efficacy only in millimolar concentrations. Only one of them, 8-Cl-cAMP as specific analogue has achieved inhibition of proliferation and stimulation of apoptosis of malignant cells in low or micromole concentrations. Still, 25 years later the mechanism of action of 8-clcAMP has not been fully elucidated or defined. This review is to challenge these mechanisms of action and to set a view of the nature of 8-Cl-cAMP action.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".