MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract 3880: In vivo activities of TP-2846: a novel tetracycline antileukemia agent

2019· article· en· W2954390247 on OpenAlexaff
Xiao-Yi Xiao, Cuixiang Sun, Jian Zhou, Noriaki Tatsuta, Joseph Newman, Douglas White, Barbara Hibner, Arijit Chakravarty, Jacques Dumas

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRetinoids in leukemia and cellular processes
Canadian institutionsFractal Systems (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBioavailabilityIn vivoPharmacokineticsPharmacologyChemistryMedicineBiologyBiotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The pharmacokinetics (PK) of TP-2846 was studied in mice, rats, and monkeys via IP, PO, and IV administration. In a mouse PK study with TP-2846 dosed IP at 10 mg/kg, C max , T 1/2 , and AUC 0-inf values of 5340 ng/mL, 6.81 h, and 5944 ng•h/mL were observed, respectively. In an IV PK study in mice, TP-2846 was dosed at 1, 3, and 6 mg/kg, and the various PK parameters at each respective dose are: C max = 1142, 5881, 8518 ng/mL; T 1/2 = 6.15, 5.15, 6.92 h; AUC 0-inf = 704, 2174, 4205 ng•h/mL. In a rat PK study, TP-2846 was dosed at 5 mg/kg IV and PO. The various PK parameters by each dosing route are: C max = 7180, 4.39 ng/mL; T 1/2 = 9.64, 9.41 h; AUC 0-inf = 9390, 21.0 ng•h/mL. In a PK study in monkeys, TP-2846 was dosed at 1, 2, 4, and 6 mg/kg IV. Key PK parameters at each respective dose are: C max = 734, 1071, 1835, 2715 ng/mL; T 1/2 = 9.97, 12.5, 15.7, 22.4 h; AUC 0-inf = 4128, 8252, 19179, 30871 ng•h/mL. TP-2846 demonstrated good half-lives and exposures across all three species. Low oral bioavailability was observed when TP-2846 was dosed in rats. Dose linearity of plasma exposure was shown when varying levels of TP-2846 was dosed in mice and monkeys. The in vivo efficacy of TP-2846 was evaluated in a number of leukemia mouse xenograft models including MV4-11, MOLT-4, CCRF-CEM, HL-60, KG-1, Kasumi-1, and K-562. TP-2846 demonstrated potent in vivo efficacy in MV4-11 with a Tumor Growth Inhibition (TGI) value of 111.4% ( p = 0.001) when dosed IP at 12.5 mg/kg, QD, 4 days on/6 days off, for two cycles, while cytarabine and tigecycline had a TGI value of 23.5% and -49.2%, respectively, at their reported optimal dosing regimens. TP-2846 was also highly efficacious in HL-60 xenograft models with a TGI value of 109.1% ( p p = 1.000), 34.73% ( p = 0.643), 103.50% ( p = 0.015), and 104.87% ( p = 0.013), respectively, when dosed at 1, 2, 4, and 6 mg/kg, QDx3, for two weeks. To understand the PK parameters that drive the efficacy of TP-2846, studies with varying dosing levels and dosing schedules were conducted in the HL-60 model. Subsequent PK/PD modeling using the resulting data sets suggested that AUC is the primary efficacy driver for TP-2846 in the xenograft model. In summary, TP-2846 displayed favorable PK profiles across multiple species and demonstrated potent, dose-responding, AUC-driven efficacy in several mouse leukemia xenograft models. These data sets, combined with other desirable in vitro , in vivo , and chemical-physical properties, support the continued pre-clinical development of TP-2846 as a new antileukemia agent. Citation Format: Xiao-Yi Xiao, Cuixiang Sun, Jian Zhou, Noriaki Tatsuta, Joseph Newman, Douglas White, Barbara Hibner, Arijit Chakravarty, Jacques Dumas. In vivo activities of TP-2846: a novel tetracycline antileukemia agent [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2019; 2019 Mar 29-Apr 3; Atlanta, GA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(13 Suppl):Abstract nr 3880.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

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)0.0020.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.328 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicRetinoids in leukemia and cellular processesFrench-language works237,207