Parallel comparison of pre-conditioning and post-conditioning effects in human cancers and keratinocytes upon acute gamma irradiation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract PURPOSE To determine and compare the effects of pre-conditioning and post-conditioning towards gamma radiation responses in human cancer cells and keratinocytes MATERIALS AND METHODS The clonogenic survival of glioblastoma cells (T98G), keratinocytes (HaCaT), and colorectal carcinoma cells (HCT116 p53 +/+ and p53 -/- ) was assessed following gamma ray exposure from a Cs-137 source. The priming dose preceded the challenge dose in pre-conditioning whereas the priming dose followed the challenge dose in post-conditioning. The priming dose was either 5 mGy or 0.1 Gy. The challenge dose was 0.5 – 5 Gy. RESULTS In both pre- and post-conditioning where the priming dose was 0.1 Gy and the challenge dose was 4 Gy, RAR developed in T98G but not in HaCaT cells. In HCT116 p53 +/+ , pre-conditioning had either no effect or a radiosensitizing effect and whereas post-conditioning induced either radiosensitizing or radioadaptive effect. The different observed outcomes were dependent on dose, the time interval between the priming and challenge dose, and the time before the first irradiation. Post-conditioning effects could occur with a priming dose as low as 5 mGy in HCT116 p53 +/+ cells. When HCT116 cells had no p53 protein expression, the radiosensitizing or radioadaptive response by the conditioning effect was abolished. CONCLUSIONS The results suggest that radiation conditioning responses are complex and depend on at least the following factors: the magnitude of priming/challenge dose, the time interval between priming and challenge dose, p53 status, cell seeding time prior to the first radiation treatment. This work is the first parallel comparison demonstrating the potential outcomes of pre- and post-conditioning in different human cell types using environmentally and medically relevant radiation doses.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".