MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2887639123 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.am2018-2894

Abstract 2894: Neratinib effects significant changes in human brain endothelial cells, demonstrating that it may have a therapeutic use in cancers with brain metastasis

2018· article· en· W2887639123 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tracey A. Martin, Sioned Owen, D. Alwyn Dart, Francesca Avogadri Connors, Alshad S. Lalani, Richard Bryce, Wen G. Jiang

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeratinibBrain metastasisMedicineTyrosine-kinase inhibitorCancer researchBreast cancerCancerInternal medicineMetastasisOncologyTrastuzumab

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Brain metastases constitute a significant part of intracranial tumors and the majority of brain metastases originate from lung, breast cancers and malignant melanoma. Breast cancer patients who develop brain metastases tend to have poor prognosis with short overall survival. Moreover, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer have an increased propensity for brain metastases. Currently, patients with brain metastases have limited therapeutic options. The failure of many cancer therapeutics for the treatment of brain metastasis has been partly attributed to an intact blood-brain barrier (BBB) tightly controlled by endothelial tight junctions (TJ). Neratinib is an orally available tyrosine kinase inhibitor that irreversibly binds to and inhibits EGFR, HER2 and HER4 receptor tyrosine kinases. This study aimed to examine the effect of neratinib on protein expression and phosphorylation status in human brain endothelial cells. Methods: Changes in protein phosphorylation in human brain (TY09 and CMEC D3) and venous endothelial cells (HECV) was assessed following neratinib treatment using protein microarrays (Kinexus, Canada). Z scores and percent changes from control (%CFC) were calculated between neratinib vs. control treatment samples at IC50. Alterations in gene expression were ascertained using AmpliSeq™ technology. Results: Of over 800 proteins evaluated, neratinib caused significant %CFC (>50%) increase in 78 targets (such as EGFR, vimentin) and a %CFC decrease in 56 targets across all endothelial cells (including ROCKI). When comparing changes between brain and vascular cells, there was a significant change in %CFC for 36 proteins, including β-catenin and FYN. Of interest β-catenin is involved in TJ regulation. Differential expression of 21 genes associated with TJ including TJP1, JAM2, MABI1, CLDN7 and CLDN10 was also observed following neratinib treatment of brain or vascular endothelial cells I comparison to vascular cells treated with neratinib. Conclusions: These results show that neratinib may alter both gene expression and phosphorylation status of a number of proteins linked to metastasis in human brain endothelial cells. Interestingly, several of these proteins are known to be involved in TJ regulation or function, suggesting that neratinib may modulate the activity of TJ in the BBB. Studies validating these findings are ongoing and may provide valuable insights into a new mode of action of neratinib for the treatment for cancers with brain metastasis. Citation Format: Tracey A. Martin, Sioned Owen, Dafydd A. Dart, Francesca Avogadri Connors, Alshad S. Lalani, Richard P. Bryce, Wen G. Jiang. Neratinib effects significant changes in human brain endothelial cells, demonstrating that it may have a therapeutic use in cancers with brain metastasis [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2018; 2018 Apr 14-18; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(13 Suppl):Abstract nr 2894.

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 score0.012

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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.128
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.318 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Research→Same topicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations→French-language works237,207→