Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27150634›Full record

ArticleCancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.)2016

5MeCDDO Blocks Metabolic Activation but not Progression of Breast, Intestine, and Tongue Cancers. Is Antioxidant Response Element a Prevention Target?

Ronald A Lubet, Reid Townsend, Margie L Clapper, M Margaret Juliana, Vernon E Steele, David L McCormick, Clinton J Grubbs

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Ronald A LubetDivision of Cancer Prevention, Chemoprevention Agent Development Research Group, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland.
Reid TownsendDepartment of Cell Biology & Physiology and Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri.
Margie L ClapperCancer Prevention and Control Program, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
M Margaret JulianaChemoprevention Center, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama.
Vernon E SteeleDivision of Cancer Prevention, Chemoprevention Agent Development Research Group, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland.
David L McCormickLife Sciences Group, IIT Research Institute, Chicago, Illinois.
Clinton J GrubbsChemoprevention Center, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama. clintongrubbs@uabmc.edu.
National Cancer Institute · USUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham · USFox Chase Cancer Center · USIIT Research Institute · USWashington University in St. Louis · US

Funding

WORD PROCESSING CENTER--COREP30CA006927 · NCI · RESEARCH INST OF FOX CHASE CAN CTR · PI Margaret von Mehren · 1985 to 2026
$138.8M
NCI NIH HHS N01 CN043301NCI NIH HHS P30 CA006927
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The preventive efficacy of the triterpenoid 5MeCDDO was tested in two models of mammary cancer, the Min model of intestinal cancer, and a chemically induced model of head and neck cancer. In one model of mammary cancer, female Sprague-Dawley rats were administered MNU at 50 days of age, and 5MeCDDO (27 ppm) was administered in the diet beginning 5 days later for the duration of the study; 5MeCDDO was ineffective. In contrast, in a model examining initiation of mammary cancers by the procarcinogen dimethyl-benzanthracene, 5, 6-benzoflavone (500 ppm, an Ah receptor agonist) or 5MeCDDO (27 or 2.7 ppm) decreased tumor multiplicity by 90%, 80%, and 50%, respectively. This anti-initiating effect which is presumably mediated by altered metabolic activation parallels our observation that 5MeCDDO induced proteins of various antioxidant response element (ARE)-related phase II drug-metabolizing enzymes [e.g., GST Pi, AKR 7A3 (aflatoxicol), epoxide hydrolase, and quinone reductase] in the liver. 5MeCDDO tested in the 4-nitroquinoline-l-oxide (4-NQO) head and neck cancer model failed to decrease tumor incidence or invasiveness. In the Min mouse model of intestinal cancer, a high dose of 5MeCDDO (80 ppm) was weakly effective in reducing adenoma multiplicity [∼30% (P < 0.05)]; however, a lower dose was totally ineffective. These findings question whether measuring increased levels of certain ARE-related genes (e.g., quinone reductase, GST Pi), indicating decreased carcinogen activation are sufficient to imply general chemopreventive efficacy of a given agent or mixture. Cancer Prev Res; 9(7); 616-23. ©2016 AACR.

Indexed as

Activation, MetabolicAnimalsAntineoplastic AgentsAntioxidant Response ElementsCarcinogensDisease ProgressionFemaleImidazolesIntestinal NeoplasmsMammary Neoplasms, ExperimentalMiceMice, Inbred AKRNeoplasms, ExperimentalOleanolic AcidRatsRats, Sprague-Dawley1-(2-cyano-3,12-dioxooleana-1,9-dien-28-oyl) imidazoleAntineoplastic AgentsCarcinogensImidazolesOleanolic Acid

Identifiers

PMID27150634
PMCPMC4930704
OpenAlexW2346749300

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.