ArticleLaboratory animal research2019
Comparison study of the response with botulinum toxin muscle injection in the ICR mice from three different sources.
Article in Laboratory animal research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Selection of Candidate Monoclonal Antibodies for Therapy of Botulinum Toxin Type A Intoxications.Toxins · 2024Article
- Immunogenicity of botulinum toxin.Archives of plastic surgery · 2022Article
- Gamma Aminobutyric Acid-Enriched Fermented Oyster (Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Influence of three BALB/c substrain backgrounds on the skin tumor induction efficacy to DMBA and TPA cotreatment.Laboratory animal research · 2020Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Botulinum-toxin A (BoNT/A) is a widely used not only for cosmetics but also for various experimental purposes including muscle-related research. In this study, we applied BoNT/A to mouse muscle of three different sources to compare and evaluate the biological and pathological response. The three different mouse sources consist of Korl:ICR (Korea FDA source), A:ICR (USA source) and B:ICR (Japan source) which were purchased from each different vendors. To compare the responses of ICR mice with BoNT/A muscle injection, we examined the body weight, hematological and serum biochemistry analysis. Also, we evaluated the muscle change by histopathological analysis and gene expression patterns of muscle-related target by qPCR. The body weight gain was decreased in the BoNT/A-treated group compared with the control group. In clinical pathologic analysis and gene expression patterns, the data showed that the responses in the BoNT/A-treated group were similar compared with the control group. Decreased muscle fiber was observed in BoNT/A-treated group compared with control group, while Korl:ICR showed a little low response with the other mouse sources. In conclusion, our results suggest that three different sources ICR mice (Korl:ICR, A:ICR and B:ICR) have a similar biological and pathological responses in BoNT/A muscle injection.
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.