ArticleMolecular biology reports2019
A dual luciferase assay for evaluation of skin sensitizing potential of medical devices.
Article in Molecular biology reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Quantitative Comparison of HSF1 Activators.Molecular biotechnology · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
According to standing regulations animal tests are still state of the art for the evaluation of the sensitization potential of medical devices. The aim of our study was to develop an in vitro method that can be used for testing of extracts of medical devices. The novel MDA-ARE assay is a cell based reporter gene assay focused on the ARE-Nrf2 pathway, which is involved in the dermal sensitization process. Optimization of the reporter construct and the cell line resulted in an improvement of the detection limit and a reduction of the incubation time to 6 h, which lowers cytotoxic side effects of the extracts on the cells. Using the assay, 21 out of 22 pure chemicals were identified correctly as skin sensitizers or non-sensitizers. All sensitizers could be detected at far lower concentrations compared to the local lymph node assay, the state-of-the-art animal test. To evaluate the assay's suitability for the testing of medical devices, medical grade silicone containing 0.1% of known skin sensitizers was prepared as positive controls and extracts of these positive controls were tested in comparison to extracts from pure silicone samples. All silicone samples were correctly and reproducibly identified as sensitizing or non-sensitizing demonstrating that the MDA-ARE assay is a sensitive and reliable tool for the detection of skin sensitizers in extracts of medical devices. The developed and validated test protocol was used for medical device extracts and showed its applicability for real samples and thus can contribute to reduce or even to replace the need for animal tests.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31364015What 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.