Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28542301›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Electronic cigarette aerosols suppress cellular antioxidant defenses and induce significant oxidative DNA damage.

Vengatesh Ganapathy, Jimmy Manyanga, Lacy Brame, Dehra McGuire, Balaji Sadhasivam, Evan Floyd, David A Rubenstein, Ilangovan Ramachandran, Theodore Wagener, Lurdes Queimado

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 92 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
92citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
11.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

92 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 170 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Lung Damage Caused by Heated Tobacco Products and Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. E-cigarette use and Barrett's esophagus: evaluating a new risk in the era of vaping.Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society · 2026
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Toxicity and Appeal of Flavoured E-Cigarettes and Flavour Ban Outcomes: A Narrative Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026
    Review
  13. Impact of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems on Oral Mucosa: A Cytopathological and Molecular Study.Journal of oral pathology & medicine : official publication of the International Association of Oral Pathologists and the American Academy of Oral Pathology · 2026
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article

32 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Vengatesh GanapathyDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, The University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, United States of America.
Jimmy ManyangaDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, The University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, United States of America.
Lacy BrameDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, The University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, United States of America.
Dehra McGuireDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, The University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, United States of America.
Balaji SadhasivamDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, The University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, United States of America.
Evan FloydDepartment of Occupational and Environmental Health, The University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, United States of America.
David A RubensteinDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Stony Brook University, New York, New York, United States of America.
Ilangovan RamachandranDepartment of Endocrinology, Dr. ALM Post Graduate Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, University of Madras, Taramani Campus, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Theodore WagenerDepartment of Pediatrics, The University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, United States of America.
Lurdes QueimadoDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, The University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, United States of America.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1106-4873
University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center · USStony Brook University · USUniversity of Madras · IN

Funding

A novel molecular assay for early detection and assessment of cancer riskR33CA202898 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA HLTH SCIENCES CTR · PI QUEIMADO, LURDES · 2016 to 2018
$1.0M
NCI NIH HHS R33 CA202898
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundElectronic cigarette (EC) aerosols contain unique compounds in addition to toxicants and carcinogens traditionally found in tobacco smoke. Studies are warranted to understand the public health risks of ECs.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to determine the genotoxicity and the mechanisms induced by EC aerosol extracts on human oral and lung epithelial cells.

methodsCells were exposed to EC aerosol or mainstream smoke extracts and DNA damage was measured using the primer anchored DNA damage detection assay (q-PADDA) and 8-oxo-dG ELISA assay. Cell viability, reactive oxygen species (ROS) and total antioxidant capacity (TAC) were measured using standard methods. mRNA and protein expression were evaluated by RT-PCR and western blot, respectively.

resultsEC aerosol extracts induced DNA damage in a dose-dependent manner, but independently of nicotine concentration. Overall, EC aerosol extracts induced significantly less DNA damage than mainstream smoke extracts, as measured by q-PADDA. However, the levels of oxidative DNA damage, as indicated by the presence of 8-oxo-dG, a highly mutagenic DNA lesion, were similar or slightly higher after exposure to EC aerosol compared to mainstream smoke extracts. Mechanistically, while exposure to EC extracts significantly increased ROS, it decreased TAC as well as the expression of 8-oxoguanine DNA glycosylase (OGG1), an enzyme essential for the removal of oxidative DNA damage.

conclusionsExposure to EC aerosol extracts suppressed the cellular antioxidant defenses and led to significant DNA damage. These findings emphasize the urgent need to investigate the potential long-term cancer risk of exposure to EC aerosol for vapers and the general public.

Indexed as

DNA DamageAerosolsAntioxidantsCell LineDose-Response Relationship, DrugElectronic Nicotine Delivery SystemsHumansOxidative StressSmokeTime FactorsAerosolsAntioxidantsSmoke

Identifiers

PMID28542301
PMCPMC5436899
OpenAlexW2619271491

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.