MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Legumain Induces Oral Cancer Pain by Biased Agonism of Protease-Activated Receptor-2

2020· article· en· W3098218729 on OpenAlexafffund
Nguyen Huu Tu, Dane D. Jensen, Bethany M. Anderson, Elyssa Chen, Nestor N. Jiménez-Vargas, Nicole N. Scheff, Kenji Inoue, Hung D. Tran, John C. Dolan, Tamaryn A. Meek, Morley D. Hollenberg, Liu C, Stephen Vanner, Malvin N. Janal, Nigel W. Bunnett, Laura E. Edgington‐Mitchell, Brian L. Schmidt

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuropeptides and Animal Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryQueen's University
FundersNational Institute of Dental and Craniofacial ResearchTakeda Pharmaceuticals InternationalNational Institutes of HealthCancer AustraliaAustralian Research CouncilCrohn's and Colitis CanadaUniversity of MelbourneNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeCentre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions, Australian Research CouncilNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesU.S. Department of Defense
KeywordsReceptorAdenylyl cyclaseProtease-activated receptorProtease-activated receptor 2Cancer researchEndocrinologyNociceptionInternal medicineTRPV1CancerProtein kinase AChemistryKinaseBiologyCell biologyTransient receptor potential channelMedicinePlateletThrombin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) is one of the most painful cancers, which interferes with orofacial function including talking and eating. We report that legumain (Lgmn) cleaves protease-activated receptor-2 (PAR 2 ) in the acidic OSCC microenvironment to cause pain. Lgmn is a cysteine protease of late endosomes and lysosomes that can be secreted; it exhibits maximal activity in acidic environments. The role of Lgmn in PAR 2 -dependent cancer pain is unknown. We studied Lgmn activation in human oral cancers and oral cancer mouse models. Lgmn was activated in OSCC patient tumors, compared with matched normal oral tissue. After intraplantar, facial or lingual injection, Lgmn evoked nociception in wild-type (WT) female mice but not in female mice lacking PAR 2 in Na V 1.8-positive neurons ( Par 2 Na v 1.8 ), nor in female mice treated with a Lgmn inhibitor, LI-1. Inoculation of an OSCC cell line caused mechanical and thermal hyperalgesia that was reversed by LI-1. Par 2 Na v 1.8 and Lgmn deletion attenuated mechanical allodynia in female mice with carcinogen-induced OSCC. Lgmn caused PAR 2 -dependent hyperexcitability of trigeminal neurons from WT female mice. Par 2 deletion, LI-1, and inhibitors of adenylyl cyclase or protein kinase A (PKA) prevented the effects of Lgmn. Under acidified conditions, Lgmn cleaved within the extracellular N terminus of PAR 2 at Asn 30 ↓Arg 31 , proximal to the canonical trypsin activation site. Lgmn activated PAR 2 by biased mechanisms in HEK293 cells to induce Ca 2+ mobilization, cAMP formation, and PKA/protein kinase D (PKD) activation, but not β-arrestin recruitment or PAR 2 endocytosis. Thus, in the acidified OSCC microenvironment, Lgmn activates PAR 2 by biased mechanisms that evoke cancer pain. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) is one of the most painful cancers. We report that legumain (Lgmn), which exhibits maximal activity in acidic environments, cleaves protease-activated receptor-2 (PAR 2 ) on neurons to produce OSCC pain. Active Lgmn was elevated in OSCC patient tumors, compared with matched normal oral tissue. Lgmn evokes pain-like behavior through PAR 2 . Exposure of pain-sensing neurons to Lgmn decreased the current required to generate an action potential through PAR 2 . Inhibitors of adenylyl cyclase and protein kinase A (PKA) prevented the effects of Lgmn. Lgmn activated PAR 2 to induce calcium mobilization, cAMP formation, and activation of protein kinase D (PKD) and PKA, but not β-arrestin recruitment or PAR 2 endocytosis. Thus, Lgmn is a biased agonist of PAR 2 that evokes cancer pain.

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)0.003
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.565

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations56
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuroscienceSame topicNeuropeptides and Animal PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207