Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32152650›Full record

ArticleArchives of toxicology2020

Robustness testing and optimization of an adverse outcome pathway on cholestatic liver injury.

Eva Gijbels, Vânia Vilas-Boas, Pieter Annaert, Tamara Vanhaecke, Lindsey Devisscher, Mathieu Vinken

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of toxicology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Adverse Outcome Pathways as Versatile Tools in Liver Toxicity Testing.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Eva GijbelsDepartment of In Vitro Toxicology and Dermato-Cosmetology, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Laarbeeklaan 103, 1090, Brussels, Belgium.
Vânia Vilas-BoasDepartment of In Vitro Toxicology and Dermato-Cosmetology, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Laarbeeklaan 103, 1090, Brussels, Belgium.
Pieter AnnaertDrug Delivery and Disposition, KU Leuven Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, O&N2, Herestraat 49-box 921, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Tamara VanhaeckeDepartment of In Vitro Toxicology and Dermato-Cosmetology, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Laarbeeklaan 103, 1090, Brussels, Belgium.
Lindsey Devisscher *Basic and Applied Medical Sciences, Gut-Liver Immunopharmacology Unit, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, C. Heymanslaan 10, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
Mathieu Vinken *Department of In Vitro Toxicology and Dermato-Cosmetology, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Laarbeeklaan 103, 1090, Brussels, Belgium. mathieu.vinken@vub.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5115-8893
Vrije Universiteit Brussel · BEGhent University · BEKU Leuven · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Adverse outcome pathways (AOPs) have been recently introduced as tools to map the mechanisms underlying toxic events relevant for chemical risk assessment. AOPs particularly depict the linkage between a molecular initiating event and an adverse outcome through a number of intermediate key events. An AOP has been previously introduced for cholestatic liver injury. The objective of this study was to test the robustness of this AOP for different types of cholestatic insult and the in vitro to in vivo extrapolation. For this purpose, in vitro samples from human hepatoma HepaRG cell cultures were exposed to cholestatic drugs (i.e. intrahepatic cholestasis), while in vivo samples were obtained from livers of cholestatic mice (i.e. extrahepatic cholestasis). The occurrence of cholestasis in vitro was confirmed through analysis of bile transporter functionality and bile acid analysis. Transcriptomic analysis revealed inflammation and oxidative stress as key events in both types of cholestatic liver injury. Major transcriptional differences between intrahepatic and extrahepatic cholestatic liver insults were observed at the level of cell death and metabolism. Novel key events identified by pathway analysis included endoplasmic reticulum stress in intrahepatic cholestasis, and autophagy and necroptosis in both intrahepatic as extrahepatic cholestasis. This study demonstrates that AOPs constitute dynamic tools that should be frequently updated with new input information.

Indexed as

Adverse Outcome PathwaysCholestasisAnimalsAutophagyBile Acids and SaltsCell LineCholestasis, IntrahepaticEndoplasmic Reticulum StressMembrane Transport ProteinsMiceOxidative StressToxicity TestsBile Acids and SaltsMembrane Transport ProteinsAdverse outcome pathwaysDrug-induced cholestasisMechanistic toxicologyTranscriptomics

Identifiers

PMID32152650
OpenAlexW3012000503

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.