Novel NAPRT specific antibody identifies small cell lung cancer and neuronal cancers as promising clinical indications for a NAMPT inhibitor/niacin co-administration strategy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
// Jonathan Cole 1 , Marie-Christine Guiot 2 , Michel Gravel 1 , Cynthia Bernier 1 , Gordon C. Shore 1 and Anne Roulston 1 1 Laboratory for Therapeutic Development, Rosalind and Morris Goodman Cancer Research Centre, and Department Biochemistry, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada 2 Department of Pathology, Montreal Neurological Hospital, Montreal, QC, Canada Correspondence to: Anne Roulston, email: Anne.roulston@mcgill.ca Keywords: NAMPT, NAPRT, biomarker, NAMPT inhibitor, NAD + biosynthesis Received: April 12, 2017 Accepted: August 17, 2017 Published: September 12, 2017 ABSTRACT Tumor cells are particularly dependent on NAD + due to higher rates of metabolism, DNA synthesis and repair. Nicotinamide phosphoribosyltransferase inhibitors (NAMPTis) inhibit NAD + biosynthesis and represent promising new anti-cancer agents. However, clinical efficacy has been limited by toxicities demonstrating the need for drug combinations to broaden the therapeutic index. One potential combination involves niacin/NAMPTi co-administration. Niacin can rescue NAD + biosynthesis through a parallel pathway that depends on nicotinic acid phosphoribosyltransferase (NAPRT) expression. Most normal tissues express NAPRT while a significant proportion of malignant cells do not, providing a possible selection marker for patients to achieve NAMPTi efficacy while minimizing toxicities. Here we identify and validate a novel highly NAPRT-specific monoclonal antibody (3C6D2) that detects functional NAPRT in paraffin embedded tissue sections by immunohistochemistry (IHC). NAPRT detection by 3C6D2 coincides with the ability of niacin to rescue cells from NAMPTi induced cytotoxicity in cell lines and animal xenograft models. 3C6D2 binds to an epitope that is unique to NAPRT among phosphoribosyltransferases. In a series of primary tumor samples from lung and brain cancer patients, we demonstrate that >70 % of human small cell lung carcinomas, glioblastomas and oligodendrogliomas lack NAPRT identifying them as potentially suitable indications for the NAMPT/niacin combination.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".