ArticleEnvironmental health perspectives2007
Lack of evidence for contact sensitization by Pfiesteria extract.
Article in Environmental health perspectives, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMembers of the estuarine dinoflagellate genus Pfiesteria are reported to have been responsible for massive fish kills in the southeastern United States. Some reports suggest that exposure to waters having Pfiesteria blooms or occupation-related exposure might result in Pfiesteria-induced dermal irritation and inflammation. Although the toxin has not been isolated and purified, the original data suggested both hydrophilic and hydrophobic toxic components. Some investigators propose that dermonecrotic properties are associated with a hydrophobic fraction.
objectivesA bioactive C18-bound putative toxin (CPE) extracted from Pfiesteria-laden aquarium water during active fish-killing conditions was examined in the present study to evaluate its potential to produce inflammation and dermal sensitization and to determine whether the inflammation and dermatitis reported in early human exposure studies were allergic or irritant in nature.
resultsThis fraction was cytotoxic to mouse Neuro-2A cells and primary human epidermal keratinocytes (NHEK) at a concentration of 1 mg/mL. Balb/C mice exposed to 50-200% CPE by skin painting exhibited a 6-10% increase in ear swelling relative to vehicle-treated mice in a primary irritancy assay. There was no increase in lymph node cell proliferation as measured using the local lymph node assay. Exposure to CPE in culture up-regulated interleukin-8 in NHEK, whereas granulocyte macrophage-colony-stimulating factor and tumor necrosis factor alpha were only minimally altered.
conclusionsThis study suggests that CPE is cytotoxic to keratinocytes in culture at high concentrations and that it induces mild, localized irritation but not dermal sensitization.
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.