ArticleEnvironmental science and pollution research international2020
In vivo comparison of the proangiogenic properties of chlordecone and three of its dechlorinated derivatives formed by in situ chemical reduction.
Article in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Physico-chemical and agronomic results of soil remediation by In Situ Chemical Reduction applied to a chlordecone-contaminated nitisol at plot scale in a French Caribbean banana plantation.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2020Article
- Prostate cancer management: long-term beliefs, epidemic developments in the early twenty-first century and 3PM dimensional solutions.The EPMA journal · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
In situ chemical reduction (ISCR) has been identified as a possible way for the remediation of soils contaminated by chlordecone (CLD). Evidences provided by the literature indicate an association between the development of prostate cancer and CLD exposure (Multigner et al. 2010). In a previous in vitro study, we demonstrated that the two main dechlorinated CLD derivatives formed by ISCR, CLD-1Cl, and CLD-3Cl have lower cytotoxicity and proangiogenic properties than CLD itself (Legeay et al. 2017). By contrast, nothing is known on the in vivo proangiogenic effect of these dechlorinated derivatives. Based on in vitro data, the aims of this study were therefore to evaluate the in vivo influence of CLD and three of its dechlorinated metabolites in the control of neovascularization in a mice model of prostate cancer. The proangiogenic effect of CLD and three of its dechlorinated derivatives, CLD-1Cl, CLD-3Cl, and CLD-4Cl, was evaluated on a murine model of human prostate tumor (PC-3) treated, at two exposure levels: 33 μg/kg and 1.7 μg/kg respectively reflecting acute and chronic toxic exposure in human. The results of serum measurements show that, for the same ingested dose, the three metabolite concentrations were significantly lower than that of CLD. Dechlorination of CLD lead therefore to molecules that are biologically absorbed or metabolized, or both, faster than the parent molecule. Prostate tumor growth was lower in the groups treated by the three metabolites compared to the one treated by CLD. The vascularization measured on the tumor sections was inversely proportional to the rate of dechlorination, the treatment with CLD-4Cl showing no difference with control animals treated with only the vehicle oil used for all substances tested. We can therefore conclude that the proangiogenic effect of CLD is significantly decreased following the ISCR-resulting dechlorination. Further investigations are needed to elucidate the molecular mechanisms by which dechlorination of CLD reduces proangiogenic effects in prostate tumor.
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.