MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

ING-006, A Novel Oral GPR40/GPR84 Fatty Acid Receptor Modulator: A Comparative Study With Nintedanib and Nerandomilast (BI-1015550) in Bleomycin-induced Lung Fibrosis and CAM-IPF Xenograft Models

2025· article· en· W4410276658 on OpenAlexaff
Lyne Gagnon, Mikaël Tremblay, Martine Charbonneau, Karine Brochu‐Gaudreau, Kelly Harper, A. Perreault, A. Felton, A. Laurin, R. Sarra-Bournet, Pierre Laurin, Claire M. Dubois

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Canadian institutionsUniversité de SherbrookeBausch Health (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNintedanibMedicineFree fatty acid receptor 1Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosisBleomycinReceptorCancer researchLungInternal medicineAgonistChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract RATIONALE: GPR40 and GPR84 have been previously described to be involved in fibrosis of the lung, kidney, heart and liver. While GPR40 expression is reduced in IPF, GPR84 is significantly increased and is correlated with the %DLCO and the predicted FVC progression/severity of the disease. ING-006 is an oral GPR40 agonist/GPR84 antagonist with antifibrotic activity in lung and liver models. The main objective of this study was to compare the antifibrotic activity of ING-006 with that of nintedanib or nerandomilast in bleomycin-induced lung fibrosis and chorioallantoic membrane (CAM)-IPF xenograft lung fragment models.METHODS: Fibrosis was induced in 10-week-old female C57BL/6 mice by intratracheal instillation of bleomycin (0.010 mg/mouse) on day 0. Daily oral treatments with ING-006 (10 mg/kg), nintedanib (60 mg/kg) or nerandomilast (12.5 mg/kg) were started on day 7, and animals were euthanised on day 28. Flexivent analysis was performed on day 28. Lungs were harvested for histology and analysis of mRNA expression levels. In vivo antifibrotic activity was also evaluated in CAM-IPF treated with the antifibrotics from day 2 to day 7 post-implantation. Xenografts were harvested for histological analysis.RESULTS: Histological analysis showed that ING-006 significantly reduced collagen deposition (57%) compared to nintedanib (29%) and nerandomilast (27%) in bleomycin-instilled lungs. ING-006 decreased bleomycin-induced overexpression of the fibrogenic markers COLIA1, FN1, MMP2, TIMP1 and IL-6, while nerandomilast showed significant reduction in FN1 and IL6, and nintedanib had no significant effect. Only ING-006 induced a significant improvement in lung respiratory mechanics (compliance/elastic properties, inspiratory capacity) as demonstrated by an increase in PV-loop, FVC, FEV0.2, Cstat, IC and Crs close to those of the control group. In CAM-IPF, a single low dose of ING-006 (10ug) induced a significant reduction in collagen area, while no significant antifibrotic activity was observed with nintedanib or nerandomilast. In addition, ING-006 showed synergistic activity with low dose nerandomilast (10ug).CONCLUSIONS: Taken together, the data show that ING-006 reduces well-established lung fibrosis and improves the PV-loop, FVC, FEV0.2, Cstat and IC more efficiently than nintedanib or nerandomilast. These results suggest that ING-006 could be a promising candidate for the treatment of IPF based on its ability to preserve lung function and act in synergy in combination with other antifibrotic compounds.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.336 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine→Same topicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations→French-language works237,207→