ArticleCell proliferation2002
Radiation-induced oral mucositis in mice: strain differences.
Article in Cell proliferation, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of mesenchymal stem cell therapy in rodent models of radiation-induced xerostomia and oral mucositis: a systematic review.Stem cell research & therapy · 2023Pooled it
- Avasopasem manganese acts as both a radioprotector and a radiomitigator of radiation-induced acute or late effects.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Hydrogen-rich water attenuates radiation-induced oral mucositis in mice via antioxidant and gut microbiota-stabilizing effects: a longitudinal study.Gut microbes reports · 2025Article
- A preclinical model to investigate normal tissue damage following fractionated radiotherapy to the head and neck.Journal of radiation research · 2023Article
- Comparison of Proteomic Biodosimetry Biomarkers Across Five Different Murine Strains.Radiation research · 2019Article
- Systemic administration of heparin ameliorates radiation-induced oral mucositis-preclinical studies in mice.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2018Article
- Single-Dose Radiation-Induced Oral Mucositis Mouse Model.Frontiers in oncology · 2016Article
- Reduced intensity conditioning and oral care measures prevent oral mucositis and reduces days of hospitalization in allogeneic stem cell transplantation recipients.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2014Article
- Guidelines for preclinical and early phase clinical assessment of novel radiosensitisers.British journal of cancer · 2011Review
- Oral mucositis in myeloma patients undergoing melphalan-based autologous stem cell transplantation: incidence, risk factors and a severity predictive model.Bone marrow transplantation · 2006Article
- Cell kinetic studies in murine ventral tongue epithelium: cell cycle progression studies using double labelling techniques.Cell proliferation · 2002Article
- Cell kinetic studies in the murine ventral tongue epithelium: thymidine metabolism studies and circadian rhythm determination.Cell proliferation · 2002Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present study was initiated to investigate strain differences in oral mucosal radiosensitivity in mice with regard to induction of clinically manifest ulceration. Mouse ventral tongue epithelium was used as an established animal model for radiobiological studies of radiation-induced mucositis. Mice from two different strains, C3H/Neu (n = 40) from the Dresden colony, and B6D2F1 (n = 50) from the Harlan/Winkelmann UK colony were subjected to irradiation of tongue mucosa. Graded single doses were applied to a 3 x 3 mm2 test field in the centre of the lower tongue with 25 kV X-rays in order to generate full dose-effect curves for acute mucosal ulceration, as a clinically relevant reaction. For both groups, dose-effect curves were computed by logit analysis; comparison of the curves was by maximum-likelihood chi2 test. In addition, the time course of ulceration, i.e. latent time and individual ulcer duration, was analysed. In both mouse strains, a well-defined dose effect was observed. The ED50 values, i.e. the doses at which ulceration is expected in 50% of the animals irradiated, and their standard deviation sigma, calculated by logit analysis, can be used to describe radiosensitivity. The ED50 was 11.0 +/- 3.4 Gy (95% confidence interval (7.2; 15.4), P for dose dependence: 0.014) and 13.4 +/- 3.6 Gy (95% confidence interval (10.6; 16.1), P for dose dependence: 0.0002) in C3H and BDF1 mice, respectively. Hence, oral mucosa in BDF1 mice was found to be marginally more radioresistant (P = 0.1). The latent time to ulceration, i.e. the time between irradiation and first diagnosis of ulcer, was 11.6 +/- 0.2 days (mean +/- SEM, n = 18) in C3H mice and 5.6 +/- 0.1 days (n = 27) in BDF1 mice (P = 0.0001). Both were independent of dose (PC3H = 0.94, PBDF1 = 0.33) and hence were calculated for all responding animals of the respective strain. Ulcer duration was 2.8 +/- 0.2 days and 2.4 +/- 0.1 days in C3H and B6 mice, respectively, and was also independent of dose (PC3H = 0.25, PBDF1 = 0.99), but was dependent on the mouse strain (P = 0.036). In conclusion, no statistically significant difference in oral mucosal radiosensitivity was observed between the mouse strains. This, however, may be attributed to the small number of animals used per dose group. The time course data, with a shorter latency and ulcer duration in BDF1 mice, are in good accordance with the higher proliferation rates reported for oral mucosa in this mouse strain.
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.