Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26110900›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Genotoxic and Antigenotoxic Assessment of Chios Mastic Oil by the In Vitro Micronucleus Test on Human Lymphocytes and the In Vivo Wing Somatic Test on Drosophila.

Dimitris Vlastos, Elena Drosopoulou, Ioanna Efthimiou, Maximos Gavriilidis, Dimitra Panagaki, Krystalenia Mpatziou, Paraskevi Kalamara, Despoina Mademtzoglou, Penelope Mavragani-Tsipidou

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 28% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Toxicology reports · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Antioxidant and Cytoprotective Potential of the Essential OilAntioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Article
  6. Effects of the Essential Oil fromMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Dimitris VlastosDepartment of Environmental and Natural Resources Management, University of Patras, Agrinio, Greece.
Elena DrosopoulouDepartment of Genetics, Development and Molecular Biology, School of Biology, Faculty of Science, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece.
Ioanna EfthimiouDepartment of Environmental and Natural Resources Management, University of Patras, Agrinio, Greece.
Maximos GavriilidisDepartment of Genetics, Development and Molecular Biology, School of Biology, Faculty of Science, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece.
Dimitra PanagakiDepartment of Genetics, Development and Molecular Biology, School of Biology, Faculty of Science, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece.
Krystalenia MpatziouDepartment of Genetics, Development and Molecular Biology, School of Biology, Faculty of Science, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece.
Paraskevi KalamaraDepartment of Genetics, Development and Molecular Biology, School of Biology, Faculty of Science, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece.
Despoina MademtzoglouDepartment of Genetics, Development and Molecular Biology, School of Biology, Faculty of Science, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece.
Penelope Mavragani-TsipidouDepartment of Genetics, Development and Molecular Biology, School of Biology, Faculty of Science, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece.
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki · GRUniversity of Patras · GR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Chios mastic oil (CMO), the essential oil derived from Pistacia lentiscus (L.) var. chia (Duham), has generated considerable interest because of its antimicrobial, anticancer, antioxidant and other beneficial properties. In the present study, the potential genotoxic activity of CMO as well as its antigenotoxic properties against the mutagenic agent mitomycin-C (MMC) were evaluated by employing the in vitro Cytokinesis Block MicroNucleus (CBMN) assay and the in vivo Somatic Mutation And Recombination Test (SMART). In the in vitro experiments, lymphocytes were treated with 0.01, 0.05 and 0.10% (v/v) of CMO with or without 0.05 μg/ml MMC, while in the in vivo assay Drosophila larvae were fed with 0.05, 0.10, 0.50 and 1.00% (v/v) of CMO with or without 2.50 μg/ml MMC. CMO did not significantly increase the frequency of micronuclei (MN) or total wing spots, indicating lack of mutagenic or recombinogenic activity. However, the in vitro analysis suggested cytotoxic activity of CMO. The simultaneous administration of MMC with CMO did not alter considerably the frequencies of MMC-induced MN and wing spots showing that CMO doesn't exert antigenotoxic or antirecombinogenic action. Therefore, CMO could be considered as a safe product in terms of genotoxic potential. Even though it could not afford any protection against DNA damage, at least under our experimental conditions, its cytotoxic potential could be of interest.

Indexed as

AnimalsDNA DamageHumansLymphocytesMicronucleus TestsMitomycinMutagenicity TestsPistaciaPlant OilsProtective AgentsWings, AnimalMitomycinPlant OilsProtective Agents

Identifiers

PMID26110900
PMCPMC4482422
OpenAlexW1149525786

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.