MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392429324 · doi:10.1186/s12860-024-00501-z

Optimizing combination therapy in prostate cancer: mechanistic insights into the synergistic effects of Paclitaxel and Sulforaphane-induced apoptosis

2024· article· en· W4392429324 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Molecular and Cell Biology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics, phytochemicals, and oxidative stress
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersScience and Technology Development Fund
KeywordsLNCaPSulforaphaneApoptosisPaclitaxelViability assayProstate cancerCombination therapyCancer researchFlow cytometryCell growthCell cycleChemistryMTT assayCancerPharmacologyBiologyMolecular biologyMedicineInternal medicineBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Combination therapies in cancer treatment have demonstrated synergistic or additive outcomes while also reducing the development of drug resistance compared to monotherapy. This study explores the potential of combining the chemotherapeutic agent Paclitaxel (PTX) with Sulforaphane (SFN), a natural compound primarily found in cruciferous vegetables, to enhance treatment efficacy in prostate cancer. METHODS: Two prostate cancer cell lines, PC-3 and LNCaP, were treated with varying concentrations of PTX, SFN, and their combination. Cell viability was assessed using the thiazolyl blue tetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay to determine the EC50 values. Western blot analysis was conducted to evaluate the expression of Bax, Bcl2, and Caspase-3 activation proteins in response to individual and combined treatments of PTX and SFN. Fluorescent microscopy was employed to observe morphological changes indicative of apoptotic stress in cell nuclei. Flow cytometry analysis was utilized to assess alterations in cell cycle phases, such as redistribution and arrest. Statistical analyses, including Student's t-tests and one-way analysis of variance with Tukey's correction, were performed to determine significant differences between mono- and combination treatments. RESULTS: The impact of PTX, SFN, and their combination on cell viability reduction was evaluated in a dose-dependent manner. The combined treatment enhanced PTX's effects and decreased the EC50 values of both drugs compared to individual treatments. PTX and SFN treatments differentially regulated the expression of Bax and Bcl2 proteins in PC-3 and LNCaP cell lines, favoring apoptosis over cell survival. Our data indicated that combination therapy significantly increased Bax protein expression and the Bax/Bcl2 ratio compared to PTX or SFN alone. Flow cytometry analysis revealed alterations in cell cycle phases, including S-phase arrest and an increased population of apoptotic cells. Notably, the combination treatments did not have a discernible impact on necrotic cells. Signs of apoptotic cell death were confirmed through Caspase-3 cleavage, and morphological changes in cell nuclei were assessed via western blot and fluorescent microscopy. CONCLUSION: This combination therapy of PTX and SFN has the potential to improve prostate cancer treatment by minimizing side effects while maintaining efficacy. Mechanistic investigations revealed that SFN enhances PTX efficacy by promoting apoptosis, activating caspase-3, inducing nuclear morphology changes, modulating the cell cycle, and altering Bax and Bcl2 protein expression. These findings offer valuable insights into the synergistic effects of PTX and SFN, supporting the optimization of combination therapy and providing efficient therapeutic strategies in preclinical research.

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.

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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.496

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.234 · 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