Ex Vivo Mitochondrial Respiration Parallels Biochemical Response to Ibrutinib in CLL Cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mitochondrial respiration is becoming more commonly used as a preclinical tool and potential biomarker for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and activated B-cell receptor (BCR) signaling. However, respiration parameters have not been evaluated with respect to dose of ibrutinib given in clinical practice or the effect of progression on ibrutinib treatment on respiration of CLL cells. We evaluated the impact of low and standard dose ibrutinib on CLL cells from patients treated in vivo on mitochondrial respiration using Oroboros oxygraph. Cytokines CCL3 and CCL4 were evaluated using the Mesoscale. Western blot analysis was used to evaluate the BCR and apoptotic pathways. We observed no difference in the mitochondrial respiration rates or levels of plasma chemokine (C-C motif) ligands 3 and 4 (CCL3/CCL4), β-2 microglobulin (β-2 M) and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) between low and standard doses of ibrutinib. This may confirm why clinical observations of the safety and efficacy of low dose ibrutinib are observed in practice. Of interest, we also observed that the mitochondrial respiration of CLL cells paralleled the increase in β-2 M and LDH at progression. Our study further supports mitochondrial respiration as a biomarker for response and progression on ibrutinib in CLL cells and a valuable pre-clinical tool.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".