Folic Acid Supplementation Adversely Affects Chemosensitivity of Colon Cancer Cells to 5-fluorouracil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Folic acid (FA) fortification and widespread supplemental use have significantly increased folate status in North America. Furthermore, >50% of colorectal cancer patients use FA supplement. The increased folate status may interfere with cancer chemotherapy. We investigated the effect of FA supplementation on chemosensitivity of human colon cancer cells to 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) using a xenograft model. Mice harboring human HCT116 colon cancer xenografts were randomized to receive the control, or 4× or 12.5× supplemental levels of FA. Within each diet group, mice were randomized to receive 5-FU+leucovorin or saline and xenograft growth and characteristics were determined. The expression of genes involved in folate metabolism and cancer treatment was determined. FA supplementation and 5-FU significantly interacted to influence xenograft growth (P < 0.007). At the control level, 5-FU significantly inhibited the growth of the xenografts (P < 0.0001). However, at the 4× supplemental level, 5-FU-treated xenografts grew faster than untreated xenografts (P = 0.048) while at the 12.5× supplemental level, 5-FU exhibited no effect. Cell proliferation, degree of necrosis, and expression of the selected genes did not significantly differ by the supplemental levels of FA. Our data suggest that FA supplementation may be detrimental to 5-FU chemotherapy of colon cancer and pose public health concern.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".