MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2739459975

Different response of breast cancer cell lines to PMA treatment

2007· article· en· W2739459975 on OpenAlexaff
Aliakbar Taherian, Thomas A. Haas

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Cancer Research · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCell Adhesion Molecules Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreast cancerCell cultureCancerCancer researchIntegrinCellCancer cellCell adhesionMedicineBiologyImmunologyOncologyInternal medicineGenetics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

B11 Breast cancer is the most common malignancy and accounts for 33% of all incident cancers in women in North America. Approximately one-third of women with breast cancer develop metastases and ultimately die from the disease. The current and future cancer treatment is mostly based on research on breast cancer cell lines so that their detailed molecular analysis may yield a better diagnostic test. There are several kinds of cell lines representing breast cancer. These cell lines have some common characteristics showing their breast cancer origin, like expressing milk proteins, but the cell lines show some discrepancies as well.
 Integrins are a large family of heterodimeric proteins that mediate cell-cell and cell-extra cellular matrix adhesion. αvβ3 is one of the integrins that is not expressed in high levels in normal tissues but in some cancer cells its higher expression is correlated directly to tumorogenecity. Although the expression of αvβ3 integrin and other related proteins have been studied in different cell lines, but there is not enough information on the effect/s of PMA on the expression of αvβ3 and different signaling proteins in breast cancer cell lines.
 In this paper three different kinds of breast cancer cell (BCC) lines; MDA-435, MDA-231, and MCF7 were treated with PMA. Beside these cell lines a non-breast cancer cell line (Hek-293) was studied along other cell lines for any possible differences. The time course PMA-treatment included, 30m, 1h, 2h, 4h and 6h. Western blot analysis and flow cytometry techniques were used to compare the level of αv, β3, αvβ3, Erk, phospho Erk, Src, phospho Src, Fak and phospho Fak proteins in these cells before and after PMA treatment.
 Flow cytometry and Western blot analysis revealed that all the cell lines express αv subunit, but only MDA-435 expressed αvβ3 integrin. PMA treatment increases αv level in MDA-435, while in other cell lines don’t change significantly. Western blot analysis demonstrated that MDA-231 expressed the highest level of FAK, which increases after a 1-2 hour exposure to PMA. The highest level of c-Src protein was detected in MDA-435 cells and the lowest in MCF7. PMA treatment increases c-Src level in MDA-435, and decreases in Hek-293. All the cell lines expressed detectable levels of Erk1/2, the level of which, did not change with PMA treatment. No phospho Erk was detected in untreated cells while PMA treatment resulted in a differential pattern of phospho Erk expression. PMA treatment induced Erk phosphorylation in MDA-435 and MCF7 after a 30 to 120 minutes, a gradual increase over six hours in MDA-231 cells, and at all times in Hek-293s.All the cell lines show the same level of Mek1/2 before or after PMA treatment, but only MDA-435 and MDA-231 show activation of phospho-Mek before PMA treatment. PMA treatment, resulted in phospho-Mek activation in MDA435 and Hek-293 after 30m to 4 h, after 30m to 2h in MDA-231, and barely detectable levels were detected in MCF7. Our results show that different cancer cell lines respond differently to PMA. These differences are more prominent in MAPK pathway (phospho Erk and phospho Mek). As MAP kinase pathway is one of the potential biomarker in cancer prevention, these findings may have applications in genetic epidemiology and prevention of breast cancer.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.258
GPT teacher head0.580
Teacher spread0.322 · 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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Cancer Research→Same topicCell Adhesion Molecules Research→French-language works237,207→