MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3163700488 · doi:10.1038/s41467-021-23086-z

Role of neutrophil extracellular traps in radiation resistance of invasive bladder cancer

2021· article· en· W3163700488 on OpenAlexafffund
Surashri Shinde-Jadhav, José João Mansure, Roni Rayes, Gautier Marcq, Mina Ayoub, Rodrigo Skowronski, Ronald Kool, France Bourdeau, Fadi Brimo, Jonathan Spicer, Wassim Kassouf

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicNeutrophil, Myeloperoxidase and Oxidative Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchGovernment of Canada
KeywordsRadioresistanceNeutrophil extracellular trapsCancer researchTumor microenvironmentCD8Immune systemBladder cancerRadiation therapyIn vivoHMGB1MedicineCancerTumor progressionBiologyImmunologyInflammationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Radiation therapy (RT) is used in the management of several cancers; however, tumor radioresistance remains a challenge. Polymorphonuclear neutrophils (PMNs) are recruited to the tumor immune microenvironment (TIME) post-RT and can facilitate tumor progression by forming neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs). Here, we demonstrate a role for NETs as players in tumor radioresistance. Using a syngeneic bladder cancer model, increased NET deposition is observed in the TIME of mice treated with RT and inhibition of NETs improves overall radiation response. In vitro, the protein HMGB1 promotes NET formation through a TLR4-dependent manner and in vivo, inhibition of both HMGB1 and NETs significantly delays tumor growth. Finally, NETs are observed in bladder tumors of patients who did not respond to RT and had persistent disease post-RT, wherein a high tumoral PMN-to-CD8 ratio is associated with worse overall survival. Together, these findings identify NETs as a potential therapeutic target to increase radiation efficacy.

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 score0.292
Threshold uncertainty score0.466

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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations198
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature CommunicationsSame topicNeutrophil, Myeloperoxidase and Oxidative MechanismsFrench-language works237,207