ArticlePloS one2014
Determining the Depth of Injury in Bioengineered Tissue Models of Cornea and Conjunctiva for the Prediction of All Three Ocular GHS Categories.
Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Material Characterisation and Stratification of Conjunctival Epithelial Cells on Electrospun Poly(ε-Caprolactone) Fibres Loaded with Decellularised Tissue Matrices.Pharmaceutics · 2021Article
- Three-Dimensional Human Cell Culture Models to Study the Pathophysiology of the Anterior Eye.Pharmaceutics · 2020Review
- Development of In Vitro Corneal Models: Opportunity for Pharmacological Testing.Methods and protocols · 2020Review
- Replacing the Draize eye test: Impedance spectroscopy as a 3R method to discriminate between all GHS categories for eye irritation.Scientific reports · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The depth of injury (DOI) is a mechanistic correlate to the ocular irritation response. Attempts to quantitatively determine the DOI in alternative tests have been limited to ex vivo animal eyes by fluorescent staining for biomarkers of cell death and viability in histological cross sections. It was the purpose of this study to assess whether DOI could also be measured by means of cell viability detected by the MTT assay using 3-dimensional (3D) reconstructed models of cornea and conjunctiva. The formazan-free area of metabolically inactive cells in the tissue after topical substance application is used as the visible correlate of the DOI. Areas of metabolically active or inactive cells are quantitatively analyzed on cryosection images with ImageJ software analysis tools. By incorporating the total tissue thickness, the relative MTT-DOI (rMTT-DOI) was calculated. Using the rMTT-DOI and human reconstructed cornea equivalents, we developed a prediction model based on suitable viability cut-off values. We tested 25 chemicals that cover the whole range of eye irritation potential based on the globally harmonized system of classification and labelling of chemicals (GHS). Principally, the MTT-DOI test method allows distinguishing between the cytotoxic effects of the different chemicals in accordance with all 3 GHS categories for eye irritation. Although the prediction model is slightly over-predictive with respect to non-irritants, it promises to be highly valuable to discriminate between severe irritants (Cat. 1), and mild to moderate irritants (Cat. 2). We also tested 3D conjunctiva models with the aim to specifically address conjunctiva-damaging substances. Using the MTT-DOI method in this model delivers comparable results as the cornea model, but does not add additional information. However, the MTT-DOI method using reconstructed cornea models already provided good predictability that was superior to the already existing established in vitro/ex vivo methods.
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.