Figure 7.
Specific metabolic profile of AML patients according to their response to chemotherapy induction. (A) Score plot of the OPLS-DA model comparing chemosensitive patients (n = 31) vs chemoresistant patients (n = 7). The model is very robust and predictive (R2Y = 0.865; Q2 = 0.641), showing well-separated groups. (B) 1D loading plot of chemosensitive (CS) and chemoresistant (CR) patients. (C) Levels of Gln, scyllo-I, Ala, GSH, and τ in chemosensitive patients compared with chemoresistant patients. Mean value ± SEM. Student t test, *P < .05, **P < .01.

Specific metabolic profile of AML patients according to their response to chemotherapy induction. (A) Score plot of the OPLS-DA model comparing chemosensitive patients (n = 31) vs chemoresistant patients (n = 7). The model is very robust and predictive (R2Y = 0.865; Q2 = 0.641), showing well-separated groups. (B) 1D loading plot of chemosensitive (CS) and chemoresistant (CR) patients. (C) Levels of Gln, scyllo-I, Ala, GSH, and τ in chemosensitive patients compared with chemoresistant patients. Mean value ± SEM. Student t test, *P < .05, **P < .01.

Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal