MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2330797109 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.am10-1290

Abstract 1290: O6-methylguanine-methyltransferase modulates glioblastoma angiogenesis and invasion

2010· article· en· W2330797109 on OpenAlexaff
Manik Chahal, Siham Sabri, Yaoxian Xu, Konrad S. Famulski, David J. Murray, Bassam Abdulkarim

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaAlberta Cancer Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTemozolomideAngiogenesisCancer researchSunitinibBiologyMethyltransferaseDNA methyltransferaseTumor progressionU87GliomaCancerDNA methylationGene expressionGeneMethylation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most aggressive primary malignant brain tumor in adults. Approximately 50% of GBM patients are resistant to standard therapy with temozolomide (TMZ) because their tumors express the DNA repair protein O6-methylguanine methyltransferase (MGMT), which repairs tumoral DNA damage induced by TMZ. GBM, a highly vascularized tumor, consistently displays a locally invasive phenotype, which contributes to biological aggressiveness and clinical recurrence. Therefore, use of the anti-angiogenic and anti-invasive agent sunitinib malate could be a promising strategy for GBM treatment. We showed that sunitinib-based treatment significantly improved the response of MGMT-positive, but not MGMT-negative, cells and this differential effect was reversed upon MGMT depletion with O6-benzylguanine. In the present study, we investigated the relationship between the expression of MGMT and the angiogenic and invasive profile of GBM cell lines. Experimental Design: We performed microarray gene expression analysis and quantitative real-time RT-PCR and analyzed the differential expression of transcripts in GBM cell lines with differential expression levels of MGMT: U87 empty vector (MGMT-negative), its counterpart U87/MGMT (MGMT-positive) (stable transfection), and T98G (constitutively expressing MGMT). We also investigated the effect of MGMT expression on GBM angiogenesis by assessing vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) secretion and the ability of growth factors secreted in the GBM conditioned media to induce endothelial tube formation in vitro, and the effect of MGMT expression on GBM invasiveness by examining F-actin organization, and migration and invasion in vitro. Results: The gene chip microarray showed differential mRNA expression of transcripts involved in angiogenesis, invasion, and response to sunitinib in U87/MGMT cells compared to U87/EV cells. These results were confirmed for several transcripts by quantitative real-time RT-PCR or western blotting. Additionally, we also showed that MGMT-positive cells have reduced angiogenic and invasive potential compared to MGMT-negative cells based on decreased VEGF bioavailability, decreased endothelial tube formation, altered morphology, and decreased invasion and migration in vitro. Conclusion: Our study is the first to show a direct link between MGMT expression and decreased angiogenicity and invasiveness of GBM cells. This altered phenotype may account for the preferential in vitro efficacy of sunitinib malate in MGMT-positive GBM cell lines. Our data provide the rationale to further investigate the role of MGMT in the regulation of the angiogenic and invasive profile of GBM. Citation Format: {Authors}. {Abstract title} [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 101st Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2010 Apr 17-21; Washington, DC. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2010;70(8 Suppl):Abstract nr 1290.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.331 · 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Research→Same topicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→