The gold complex auranofin sensitizes platinum resistant epithelial ovarian cancer cells to cisplatin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although numerous drugs have been tested to treat ovarian cancer (OC), survival rates remain low as there has been no major improvement from platinum (Pt)–based therapy and there is a high rate of Pt resistance in these tumors. Following several rounds of chemotherapy, OC cells develop Pt-resistance by increasing DNA repair and antioxidant defense mechanisms. This study aimed to design a treatment to combat recurrent stages of OC by repurposing the anti-rheumatic gold complex auranofin (AF). We demonstrate that AF enhances the efficacy of cisplatin (CDDP) in Pt-resistant epithelial OC (EOC) cells. The drug combination enhanced mitochondrial-dependent apoptosis, PARP cleavage, DNA damage, and ROS overproduction. These results suggest the potential to combine AF with CDDP as a strategy to improve CDDP sensitivity in recurrent EOCs. • Auranofin synergizes with cisplatin in killing epithelial ovarian cancer cells. • Auranofin/cisplatin-mediated toxicity is associated with intrinsic apoptosis. • Auranofin/cisplatin-mediated apoptosis occurs with DNA damage. • Auranofin/cisplatin triggers oxidative stress in ovarian cancer cells.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".