MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

RET‐Dependent Axonal Sprouting from Spinal Afferent Neurons in a Pancreatic Cancer Model

2022· article· en· W4225377888 on OpenAlexafffund
Samira Osman, Bryanna Thomson, Brandy D. Hyndman, Lois M. Mulligan, Alan Lomax

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPancreatic cancerSproutingNeuroscienceAfferentMedicineBiologyCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective Activation of the RET receptor tyrosine kinase stimulates signaling pathways associated with cell proliferation, growth, differentiation, and survival. Changes in the expression of this receptor and its associated ligands have been linked to tumorigenesis in several tumor types, including pancreatic cancer. It has been established that tumor cells can migrate towards and invade cells of the nervous system, a process called perineural invasion that is associated with metastasis and reduced survival. Given that RET ligands play important roles in spinal afferent neuronal development and morphology, we hypothesized that the release of RET ligands by pancreatic cancer cells has a neurotrophic effect on spinal afferent neurons, drawing their axons towards the tumor and facilitating perineural invasion. Methods Thoraco‐lumbar (T10‐L2) dorsal root ganglion (DRG) neurons from male C57BL/6 mice were collected, dissociated, and cultured for 4 days in F12 media along with a 1:3 dilution of conditioned media from two pancreatic cancer cell lines (PanC1 and MiaPaCa2) or a cell‐free media control (F12 + 1:3 DMEM). In a separate set of experiments, DRG neurons were exposed to the same conditioned media along with the RET inhibitor, Selpercatinib (5 µM, diluted in DMSO). For the RET inhibitor experiments two control groups were used, the 1 st contained F12 media + 1:3 DMEM + DMSO (vehicle controls, VC), and the 2 nd group of controls consisted of F12 media + 1:3 DMEM + Selpercatinib (VC + Selp). Neurons were stained with calcein‐AM (1 µM) and visualized using a fluorescent microscope. Changes in DRG neuron morphology (neurite length and branching relative to distance from cell soma) were quantified using Sholl analysis. Results Sholl plots revealed significant changes in DRG neuron morphology following treatment with either PanC1 or MiaPaCa2 conditioned media compared to DRG neurons treated with the RET inhibitor, or the different control groups. Where DRG neurons incubated with PanC1 conditioned media demonstrated an approximate 3 to 4‐fold increase in neurite length compared to VC and VC + Selp (229 ± 32.7 µm vs 74.7 ± 12.2 µm vs 50.2 ± 6.3 µm; respectively). These effects on neurite length were significantly diminished following treatment of the DRG neurons with PanC1 + Selp (116.6 ± 15.5 µm). Furthermore, treatment of DRG neurons with the PanC1 conditioned media led to a 2‐fold increase in the maximum branching of neurites (10.4 ± 2.1 intersections; n=36) compared to VCs (5.75 ± 1.3 intersections; n=35). Again, these effects were significantly diminished following treatment of DRG neurons with PanC1 conditioned media + Selp (3.75 ± 0.6 intersections; n=40) (Kruskal‐Wallis with Dunn’s post‐hoc multiple comparison test, p<0.001). Similar RET‐dependent effects were observed for DRG neurons treated with conditioned media from the MiaPaCa2 cell line. Conclusion These data suggest that pancreatic cell lines release RET ligands that may attract axons of spinal afferent neurons towards them, which may facilitate perineural invasion.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.250 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→