ArticleCytotechnology2016
DNA damage in human germ cell exposed to the some food additives in vitro.
Article in Cytotechnology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.
- Consumption of fast foods and ultra-processed foods and breast cancer risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Global health research and policy · 2025Pooled it
- Synthetic food pigment sunset yellow potentiates food allergy via immune dysregulation and intestinal barrier dysfunction.NPJ science of food · 2026Article
- Antioxidants: a comprehensive review.Archives of toxicology · 2025Review
- Cytotoxic and genotoxic effects of tert-butylhydroquinone, butylated hydroxyanisole and propyl gallate as synthetic food antioxidants.Food science & nutrition · 2024Review
- Review
- Filling Analytical Gaps in Allergen Detection─Real-Time PCR for the Detection of Commercially Relevant Cephalopods and Gastropods in Food.Journal of agricultural and food chemistry · 2023Article
- Unraveling the Molecular Impact of Sperm DNA Damage on Human Reproduction.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2022Article
- Cytotoxic effects of Roundup Classic and its components on NE-4C and MC3T3-E1 cell lines determined by biochemical and flow cytometric assays.Toxicology reports · 2022Article
- Lufenuron induces reproductive toxicity and genotoxic effects in pregnant albino rats and their fetuses.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Protective potential of curcumin or taurine on nephrotoxicity caused by bisphenol A.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2020Article
- Article
- All aspect of toxic effect of brilliant blue and sunset yellow in Allium cepa roots.Cytotechnology · 2018Article
- Mechanisms of DNA damage, repair, and mutagenesis.Environmental and molecular mutagenesis · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of food additives has increased enormously in modern food technology but they have adverse effects in human healthy. The aim of this study was to investigate the DNA damage of some food additives such as citric acid (CA), benzoic acid (BA), brilliant blue (BB) and sunset yellow (SY) which were investigated in human male germ cells using comet assay. The sperm cells were incubated with different concentrations of these food additives (50, 100, 200 and 500 μg/mL) for 1 h at 32 °C. The results showed for CA, BA, BB and SY a dose dependent increase in tail DNA%, tail length and tail moment in human sperm when compared to control group. When control values were compared in the studied parameters in the treatment concentrations, SY was found to exhibit the highest level of DNA damage followed by BB > BA > CA. However, none of the food additives affected the tail DNA%, tail length and tail moment at 50 and 100 μg/mL. At 200 μg/mL of SY, the tail DNA% and tail length of sperm were 95.80 ± 0.28 and 42.56 ± 4.66, for BB the values were 95.06 ± 2.30 and 39.56 ± 3.78, whereas for BA the values were 89.05 ± 2.78 and 31.50 ± 0.71, for CA the values were 88.59 ± 6.45 and 13.59 ± 2.74, respectively. However, only the highest concentration of the used food additives significantly affected the studied parameters of sperm DNA. The present results indicate that SY and BB are more harmful than BA and CA to human sperm in vitro.
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.