ArticleJournal of clinical biochemistry and nutrition2013
Evaluation of two distinct methods to quantify the uptake of crocidolite fibers by mesothelial cells.
Article in Journal of clinical biochemistry and nutrition, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Methodological steps forward in toxicological in vitro screening of mineral wools in primary rat alveolar macrophages and normal rat mesothelial NRM2 cells.Archives of toxicology · 2024Article
- Role of hemoglobin and transferrin in multi-wall carbon nanotube-induced mesothelial injury and carcinogenesis.Cancer science · 2016Article
- Receptor role of the annexin A2 in the mesothelial endocytosis of crocidolite fibers.Laboratory investigation; a journal of technical methods and pathology · 2015Article
- Rat model demonstrates a high risk of tremolite but a low risk of anthophyllite for mesothelial carcinogenesis.Nagoya journal of medical science · 2014Article
- Iron overload as a major targetable pathogenesis of asbestos-induced mesothelial carcinogenesis.Redox report : communications in free radical research · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Exposure to asbestos fibers increases the risk of mesothelioma in humans. One hypothetical carcinogenic mechanism is that asbestos fibers may directly induce mutations in mesothelial cells. Although the uptake of asbestos fibers by mesothelial cells is recognized, methods for the quantification of the uptake have not been well established. In the present study, we evaluated two distinct methods, using crocidolite fibers and MeT5A mesothelial cells. One method is histological evaluation using the cell-block technique, which allows for the direct cross-sectional observation of cells and fibers. We found the bright field observation with ×1000 magnification (oil-immersion) of the sample with Kernechtrot staining was most suitable for this purpose. The other method is flow cytometric analysis, which permits the evaluation of a much larger number of cells. We observed that the side scatter (SSC) increased with the intracellular fibers, and that the "mean SSC ratio (treated/control)" was useful for quantification. We could collect the cells with abundant internalized crocidolite fibers by sorting. Results of the two methodologies were correlated well in the experiments. The quantities of internalized fibers increased with incubation time and loaded dosage, but they were inversely associated with cellular density in culture.
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.