ArticleStrahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al]2020
Modulation of radiation-induced oral mucositis (mouse) by dermatan sulfate: effects on differentiation processes.
Article in Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al], 2020. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- A preclinical model to investigate normal tissue damage following fractionated radiotherapy to the head and neck.Journal of radiation research · 2023Article
- Does Photobiomodulation Affects CK10 and CK14 in Oral Mucositis Radioinduced Repair?International journal of molecular sciences · 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
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDuring head and neck cancer radiotherapy, oral mucositis is the most frequent early side effect. Systemic dermatan sulfate (DS) administration has been shown to significantly decrease oral mucosal radiation reactions during daily fractionated irradiation (IR) in an established mouse model. The aim of this study was to investigate the mechanism of the oral epithelial differentiation process, during IR alone and in combination with DS treatment in the same mouse model.
methodsFractionated IR 5 × 3 Gy/week was given to the snouts of mice over two weeks, either alone (IR) or in combination with daily DS treatment of 4 mg/kg (IR + DS). Groups of mice (n = 3) were sacrificed every second day over the course of 14 days in both experimental arms. Their tongue was excised and subjected to immunohistochemical processing.
resultsIn the p16 analysis as a proliferation marker, the difference between IR alone and IR + DS in the germinal (proliferation) layer was not significant, not stimulating the proliferation process. For the p21 analysis as a differentiation marker on the functional (differentiation) layer, the difference between IR alone and IR + DS arms was significant, indicating that DS inhibited the differentiation process. In the cytokeratin (CK) analysis as the indicator of cellular skeletal integrity, the percentage of antibody-positive cells was above the normal level in both experimental arms and significantly superior in the IR + DS arm.
conclusionThe mucosal protective activity of DS, instead of stimulating proliferation, is based on prevention of cell loss by a combination of effects leading to the inhibition of cellular differentiation and an increase in the expression of epithelial mechanical strength between intercellular mechanical junctions.
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.