ArticleThe Annals of otology, rhinology, and laryngology2015
How reliable are sino-nasal cell lines for studying the pathophysiology of chronic rhinosinusitis?
Article in The Annals of otology, rhinology, and laryngology, 2015. 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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Infection of primary nasal epithelial cells differentiates among lethal and seasonal human coronaviruses.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Article
- Infection of primary nasal epithelial cells differentiates among lethal and seasonal human coronaviruses.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2022Article
- A thermoresponsive hydrogel system for long-acting corticosteroid delivery into the paranasal sinuses.Journal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society · 2021Article
- A 3D "Biomolecules & therapeutics · 2020Article
- Models for the study of nasal and sinus physiology in health and disease: A review of the literature.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWell-characterized cell lines represent useful scientific tools to study the pathophysiology of human disease. Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is a very common condition, though the number of CRS cell lines is limited, as are data showing how closely they resemble primary cells. METHODOLOGY: Searches for available human cell lines were performed using the American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) and European Collection of Cell Cultures (ECACC). Identified cells were cultured and characterized with tinctorial and immunohistochemical staining and ELISA to assess their response to common, disease-relevant inflammatory stimuli. Carefully phenotyped CRS patients were recruited with informed consent. Primary nasal epithelial cell (PNEC) brushings were harvested, cultured, and compared to the available cell lines.
resultsSearches identified 1 relevant CRS sino-nasal cell line, RPMI 2650. Cultured PNECs showed strong expression of epithelial markers while being negative for mesenchymal markers. However, RPMI 2650 cells show an atypical mixed epithelial/mesenchymal phenotype. When stimulated by pro-inflammatory ligands, PNECs responded in a dose-dependent manner, whereas RPMI 2650 cells showed limited response.
conclusionsThe number and availability of cell lines to study the pathophysiology of CRS greatly underrepresent the disease burden. Additionally, the sole commercially available cell line appears to have a different phenotype and behavior to primary patient-derived cells. The development of further reproducible cell lines would be beneficial in our understanding of CRS.
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.