Alterations in chemokine receptor CCR5 activity influence tumor cell biology in human cholangiocarcinoma cell lines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Intrahepatic (I-CCA) and extrahepatic (E-CCA) cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) have different growth patterns and risks for tumor metastasis. Inhibition and/or activation of the chemokine receptor CCR subclasses have been reported to alter tumor cell biology in non-CCA cancers. In this study we documented CCR expression profiles in representative human I-CCA and E-CCA cell lines and the in vitro effects of CCR antagonists and agonists on tumor cell biology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: CCR expression profiles were documented by real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction; cell proliferation by WST-1; spheroid formation by sphere dimensions in anchorage-free medium; cell migration by wound healing and invasion by Transwell invasion chambers. RESULTS: All 10 CCR motifs (CCR1-10) were expressed in the I-CCA, HuCCT1 cell line and six (CCR4, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10) in the E-CCA, KMBC cell line. In HuCCT1 cells, CCR5 expression was most abundant whereas in KMBC cells, CCR6 followed by CCR5 were most abundant. The CCR5 antagonist Maraviroc significantly inhibited cell proliferation, migration and invasion in HuCCT1 cells, and spheroid formation and invasion in KMBC cells. The CCR5 agonist RANTES had no effect on HuCCT1 cells but increased cell proliferation, migration and invasion of KMBC cells. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that CCR expression profiles differ in I-CCA and E-CCA. They also indicate that CCR5 antagonists and agonists have cell-specific effects but in general, CCR5 inactivation inhibits CCA tumor cell aggressiveness. Additional research is required to determine whether CCR5 inactivation is of value in the treatment of CCA in humans.
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".