ArticlePharmaceutical research1999
Effects of pharmaceutical compounds on ciliary beating in human nasal epithelial cells: a comparative study of cell culture models.
Article in Pharmaceutical research, 1999. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of the basic morphology and function of 3D lung epithelial cultures derived from several donors.Current research in toxicology · 2020Article
- Article
- In vitro culturing of ciliary respiratory cells--a model for studies of genetic diseases.Journal of applied genetics · 2011Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo test two in vitro human nasal epithelial cell culture systems for their ability to screen the effects of pharmaceutical compounds on ciliary beating.
methodsHuman nasal epithelial cells were cultured as monolayer and in a sequential monolayer-suspension culture with in vitro ciliogenesis. The influence of reference cilio-stimulatory compounds (glycocholate, isoprenaline), reference cilio-inhibitory compounds (chlorocresol, diphenhydramine) and pH on ciliary beating was investigated using computerized microscope photometry.
resultsSodium glycocholate (0.5% w/v) maximally and reversibly increased CBF of the cells in both culture systems by 26 +/- 4% (monolayer) and 18 +/- 6% (suspension). Similarly, isoprenaline (10(-3) M) maximally, but irreversibly increased CBF of the cells by 14 +/-3% (monolayer) and 17 +/- 4% (suspension). Chlorocresol (0.005% w/ v) reversibly reduced the CBF of the cells by 50 +/- 6% (monolayer) and 34 +/- 4% (suspension); at a higher concentration (0.1% w/v) it resulted in instantaneous and irreversible ciliostasis. Diphenhydramine (0.1% w/v) reversibly reduced CBF in both culture systems by 45 +/- 13% (monolayer) and 69 +/- 5% (suspension); irreversible cilio-stasis occurred in less than 2 minutes in both culture systems upon cell exposure to diphenhydramine (1.0% w/v). In the monolayer culture system, CBF was stable only within the physiological pH range of 6.5-8.0; ciliary beating in the suspension culture remained stable within a pH range of 4.0-10.0.
conclusionsBoth cell culture systems are suitable for screening the effects of pharmaceutical compounds on ciliary beating. Especially the sequential monolayer-suspension culture appears to be very promising as ciliary activity can be preserved for as long as 6 months.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.