Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33087173›Full record

ArticleBMC research notes2020

In vitro biological assessment of the stability of cigarette smoke aqueous aerosol extracts.

Mark Taylor, Simone Santopietro, Andrew Baxter, Nicole East, Damien Breheny, David Thorne, Marianna Gaça

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC research notes, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

7 authors.

Mark TaylorBritish American Tobacco, R&D, Southampton, SO15 8TL, Hampshire, UK.
Simone SantopietroBritish American Tobacco, R&D, Southampton, SO15 8TL, Hampshire, UK. Simone_Santopietro@bat.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5093-9428
Andrew BaxterBritish American Tobacco, R&D, Southampton, SO15 8TL, Hampshire, UK.
Nicole EastBritish American Tobacco, R&D, Southampton, SO15 8TL, Hampshire, UK.
Damien BrehenyBritish American Tobacco, R&D, Southampton, SO15 8TL, Hampshire, UK.
David ThorneBritish American Tobacco, R&D, Southampton, SO15 8TL, Hampshire, UK.
Marianna GaçaBritish American Tobacco, R&D, Southampton, SO15 8TL, Hampshire, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesCigarette smoke aqueous aerosol extracts (AqE) have been used for assessing tobacco products, particularly with in vitro models such as oxidative stress and inflammation. These test articles can be generated easily, but there are no standardised methods for the generation and characterisation or stability. We investigated the effects of pro-oxidant smoke-derived chemicals by using 3R4F AqE generated under standardised conditioning and smoking regimes and assessed the stability over 31-week timeframe. Twenty batches generated from ten puffs per cigarette bubbled through 20 ml cell culture media were used fresh and thawed from frozen aliquots stored at - 80 ºC.

resultsNicotine levels quantified by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry and optical density at 260 nm showed chemical and physical stability from week 0 (fresh sample) to weeks 1, 4, 8 and 31 (frozen samples). No significant change in H292 human bronchial epithelial cell viability or oxidative stress were observed between fresh AqE at week 0 and frozen AqE at 31 weeks. AqEs generated by our protocol were stable for up to 31 weeks for all tested end points, suggesting that it may not be necessary to use freshly generated AqE for each study, thus reducing batch-to-batch variability.

Indexed as

SmokeTobacco ProductsAerosolsHumansSmokingAerosolsSmokeAqEAqueous extractCigarette smokeIn vitroStability

Identifiers

PMID33087173
PMCPMC7579917

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.