MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3180575562 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.am2021-1427

Abstract 1427: Sensitizing HL60 acute myeloid leukemia cells to decitabine with pterostilbene

2021· article· en· W3180575562 on OpenAlexaff
Cayla Boycott, Barbara Stefañska

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEpigenetics and DNA Methylation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDecitabineMyeloid leukemiaPterostilbeneHL60LeukemiaMedicineCancer researchDNA demethylationAzacitidineDemethylating agentHypomethylating agentCell culturePharmacologyCell growthDNA methylationGene expressionChemistryBiologyInternal medicineGeneBiochemistryResveratrolGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction. Decitabine (DAC), is a DNA hypomethylating agent that has been shown to be potent towards leukemia cells at low doses. However, many patients develop resistance to the drug due to dysregulation of genes associated with responsiveness to DAC-induced DNA demethylation. To this regard, it has been reported that downregulation of TET2, one of the demethylating enzymes, increases sensitivity to DAC in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) cells. Remarkably, dietary bioactive compounds such as pterostilbene (PTS), with a stilbenoid ring structure, have previously been shown to mediate changes in gene expression through regulation of the epigenetic machinery in cancer models. Thus, we sought to test the impact of treatment of leukemia cells with PTS to augment expression of genes involved in the responsiveness of low-dose DAC in AML cells. Methods. HL60, an AML cell line, was either treated in combination with PTS (1.0 µM) and DAC (200 nM) or pre-treated with different concentrations of PTS (0 µM, 0.5 µM, 1.0 µM, 2 µM) for four days followed by DAC treatment (100 nM) for three days. Cell growth was assessed via trypan blue dye exclusion test and comparisons were made between combination treatment and pre-treatment with PTS. qPCR was performed in triplicates for each assay to assess expression of selected genes. Results. Treatment of HL60 cells with 200 nM DAC alone led to a 60% decrease in cell growth compared to control (treated with ethanol as a vehicle). After the combined treatment with PTS, cell growth decreased by further 27% compared to DAC alone. In order to decipher if this decrease in cell growth was due to the effect of PTS sensitizing cells to DAC, the cells were first pre-treated with PTS for four days and subsequently treated with DAC for three days. Compared to control (ethanol pre-treated cells), growth of cells treated with 100 nM DAC alone was decreased by about 37%, while growth of cells pre-treated with 0.5 µM, 1.0 µM, and 2.0 µM PTS followed by 100 nM DAC exposure was further reduced by 13%, 14.5%, and 30%, respectively. This suggests that PTS-pre-treated cells are more sensitive to DAC. Interestingly, DAC alone at 200 nM led to an increase in expression of TET2 (p<0.01) while PTS at 1.0 µM alone led a decrease (p<0.01) compared to control. However, when PTS and DAC were combined, TET2 levels increased significantly (p<0.01) compared to both control and DAC alone, despite its better ability to inhibit growth. In order to explore this further, we will proceed with investigating the effects of pre-treatment with PTS on TET2 expression in HL60 cells. Conclusion. Treatment of HL60 cells with PTS results in improved sensitivity of cells to low doses of DAC, possibly due to modulating TET2 expression. Citation Format: Cayla Boycott, Barbara Stefanska. Sensitizing HL60 acute myeloid leukemia cells to decitabine with pterostilbene [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021; 2021 Apr 10-15 and May 17-21. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(13_Suppl):Abstract nr 1427.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0030.001

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Research→Same topicEpigenetics and DNA Methylation→French-language works237,207→