MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3138111422 · doi:10.3389/fonc.2021.645757

NSG Mice Facilitate ex vivo Characterization of Ewing Sarcoma Lung Metastasis Using the PuMA Model

2021· article· en· W3138111422 on OpenAlexaff
Renata Scopim‐Ribeiro, Michael M. Lizardo, Haifeng Zhang, Anne-Chloé Dhez, Chistopher S. Hughes, Poul H. Sorensen

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPumaNodCancer researchEx vivoMetastasisMedicineSarcomaPathologyImmunologyCancerBiologyIn vivoInternal medicineApoptosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ewing sarcoma (EwS) is a highly malignant bone and soft tissue tumor primarily affecting children and young adults. While most patients initially respond well to conventional front-line therapy, frequent metastasis results in poor 5-year overall survival rates for this disease. Accordingly, there is a critical need to develop better models to understand EwS metastasis. We and others previously used the ex vivo pulmonary metastasis assay (PuMA) to study lung metastasis in solid tumors including osteosarcoma (OS), but this technique has to date not been achievable for EwS. PuMA involves tail vein injection of fluorescent tumor cells into NOD-SCID mice, followed by their visualization in long-term cultures of tumor-bearing lung explants. Here we demonstrate successful implementation of PuMA for EwS cells using NOD-SCID-IL2 receptor gamma null (NSG) immunocompromised mice, which demonstrated high engraftment of EwS cell lines compared to NOD-SCID mice. This may be linked to immune permissiveness required by EwS cells, as increased basal cytotoxicity of EwS cells was observed in NOD-SCID compared to NSG lung sections, possibly due to the absence of natural killer (NK) cell activity in the latter. Together, our data demonstrate the utility of NSG mice for PuMA modeling of EwS lung metastasis.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.603
Threshold uncertainty score0.415

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in OncologySame topicSarcoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207