Effect of feedback regulation on stem cell fractions in tissues and tumors: understanding chemo-resistance in bladder cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract While resistance mutations are often implicated in the failure of cancer therapy, lack of response also occurs without such mutants. In bladder cancer mouse xenografts, repeated chemotherapy cycles have resulted in cancer stem cell (CSC) enrichment, and consequent loss of therapy response due to the reduced susceptibility of CSCs to drugs. A particular feedback loop present in the xenografts has been shown to promote CSC enrichment in this system. Yet, many other regulatory loops might also be operational and might promote CSC enrichment. Their identification is central to improving therapy response. Here, we perform a comprehensive mathematical analysis to define what types of regulatory feedback loops can and cannot contribute to CSC enrichment, providing guidance to the experimental identification of feedback molecules. We derive a formula that reveals whether or not the cell population experiences CSC enrichment over time, based on the properties of the feedback. We find that negative feedback on the CSC division rate or positive feedback on differentiated cell death rate can lead to CSC enrichment. Further, the feedback mediators that achieve CSC enrichment can be secreted by either CSCs or by more differentiated cells. The extent of enrichment is determined by the CSC death rate, the CSC self-renewal probability, and by feedback strength. Defining these general characteristics of feedback loops can guide the experimental screening for and identification of feedback mediators that can promote CSC enrichment in bladder cancer and potentially other tumors. This can help understand and overcome the phenomenon of CSC-based therapy resistance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".