Intratumor Heterogeneity and Therapy Resistance: Contributions of Dormancy, Apoptosis Reversal (Anastasis) and Cell Fusion to Disease Recurrence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A major challenge in treating cancer is posed by intratumor heterogeneity, with different sub-populations of cancer cells within the same tumor exhibiting therapy resistance through different biological processes. These include therapy-induced dormancy (durable proliferation arrest through, e.g., polyploidy, multinucleation, or senescence), apoptosis reversal (anastasis), and cell fusion. Unfortunately, such responses are often overlooked or misinterpreted as "death" in commonly used preclinical assays, including the in vitro colony-forming assay and multiwell plate "viability" or "cytotoxicity" assays. Although these assays predominantly determine the ability of a test agent to convert dangerous (proliferating) cancer cells to potentially even more dangerous (dormant) cancer cells, the results are often assumed to reflect loss of cancer cell viability (death). In this article we briefly discuss the dark sides of dormancy, apoptosis, and cell fusion in cancer therapy, and underscore the danger of relying on short-term preclinical assays that generate population-based data averaged over a large number of cells. Unveiling the molecular events that underlie intratumor heterogeneity together with more appropriate experimental design and data interpretation will hopefully lead to clinically relevant strategies for treating recurrent/metastatic disease, which remains a major global health issue despite extensive research over the past half century.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".