MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3011044624 · doi:10.1158/1535-7163.mct-19-0745

Decitabine Response in Breast Cancer Requires Efficient Drug Processing and Is Not Limited by Multidrug Resistance

2020· article· en· W3011044624 on OpenAlexafffund
Margaret L. Dahn, Brianne M. Cruickshank, Ainsleigh J. Jackson, Cheryl A. Dean, Ryan W. Holloway, Steven R. Hall, Krysta M. Coyle, Hillary Maillet, David M. Waisman, Kerry B. Goralski, Carman A. Giacomantonio, Ian C.G. Weaver, Paola Marcato

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Cancer Therapeutics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEpigenetics and DNA Methylation
Canadian institutionsNova Scotia Cancer CentreDalhousie University
FundersNova Scotia Health Research FoundationCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCancer Research SocietyNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaDalhousie Medical Research Foundation
KeywordsDecitabineCancer researchDNA methylationTriple-negative breast cancerCancerBreast cancerDemethylating agentBiologyAzacitidineMedicineOncologyInternal medicineGeneGeneticsGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dysregulation of DNA methylation is an established feature of breast cancers. DNA demethylating therapies like decitabine are proposed for the treatment of triple-negative breast cancers (TNBC) and indicators of response need to be identified. For this purpose, we characterized the effects of decitabine in a panel of 10 breast cancer cell lines and observed a range of sensitivity to decitabine that was not subtype specific. Knockdown of potential key effectors demonstrated the requirement of deoxycytidine kinase (DCK) for decitabine response in breast cancer cells. In treatment-naïve breast tumors, DCK was higher in TNBCs, and DCK levels were sustained or increased post chemotherapy treatment. This suggests that limited DCK levels will not be a barrier to response in patients with TNBC treated with decitabine as a second-line treatment or in a clinical trial. Methylome analysis revealed that genome-wide, region-specific, tumor suppressor gene-specific methylation, and decitabine-induced demethylation did not predict response to decitabine. Gene set enrichment analysis of transcriptome data demonstrated that decitabine induced genes within apoptosis, cell cycle, stress, and immune pathways. Induced genes included those characterized by the viral mimicry response; however, knockdown of key effectors of the pathway did not affect decitabine sensitivity suggesting that breast cancer growth suppression by decitabine is independent of viral mimicry. Finally, taxol-resistant breast cancer cells expressing high levels of multidrug resistance transporter ABCB1 remained sensitive to decitabine, suggesting that the drug could be used as second-line treatment for chemoresistant patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.938

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations32
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular Cancer TherapeuticsSame topicEpigenetics and DNA MethylationFrench-language works237,207