Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34485931›Full record

ArticleCurrent research in toxicology2021

Use of a rapid human primary cell-based disease screening model, to compare next generation products to combustible cigarettes.

Liam Simms, Elizabeth Mason, Ellen L Berg, Fan Yu, Kathryn Rudd, Lukasz Czekala, Edgar Trelles Sticken, Oleg Brinster, Roman Wieczorek, Matthew Stevenson and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current research in toxicology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 30% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

11 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Liam SimmsImperial Brands PLC, 121 Winterstoke Road, Bristol BS3 2LL UK.
Elizabeth MasonImperial Brands PLC, 121 Winterstoke Road, Bristol BS3 2LL UK.
Ellen L BergEurofins Discovery, Inc., 111 Anza Blvd, Suite 414, Burlingame, CA 94010, USA.
Fan YuImperial Brands PLC, 121 Winterstoke Road, Bristol BS3 2LL UK.
Kathryn RuddImperial Brands PLC, 121 Winterstoke Road, Bristol BS3 2LL UK.
Lukasz CzekalaImperial Brands PLC, 121 Winterstoke Road, Bristol BS3 2LL UK.
Edgar Trelles StickenReemtsma Cigarettenfabriken GmbH, An Imperial Brands PLC Company, Albert-EinsteinRing-7, D-22761 Hamburg, Germany.
Oleg BrinsterReemtsma Cigarettenfabriken GmbH, An Imperial Brands PLC Company, Albert-EinsteinRing-7, D-22761 Hamburg, Germany.
Roman WieczorekReemtsma Cigarettenfabriken GmbH, An Imperial Brands PLC Company, Albert-EinsteinRing-7, D-22761 Hamburg, Germany.
Matthew StevensonImperial Brands PLC, 121 Winterstoke Road, Bristol BS3 2LL UK.
Tanvir WaleleImperial Brands PLC, 121 Winterstoke Road, Bristol BS3 2LL UK.
Imperial Brands (United Kingdom) · GBBritish American Tobacco (Germany) · DEEurofins (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A growing number of public health bodies, regulators and governments around the world consider electronic vapor products a lower risk alternative to conventional cigarettes. Of critical importance are rapid new approach methodologies to enable the screening of next generation products (NGPs) also known as next generation tobacco and nicotine products. In this study, the activity of conventional cigarette (3R4F) smoke and a range of NGP aerosols (heated tobacco product, hybrid product and electronic vapor product) captured in phosphate buffered saline, were screened by exposing a panel of human cell-based model systems using Biologically Multiplexed Activity Profiling (BioMAP® Diversity PLUS® Panel, Eurofins Discovery). Following exposure, the biological activity for a wide range of biomarkers in the BioMAP panel were compared to determine the presence of toxicity signatures that are associated with specific clinical findings. NGP aerosols were found to be weakly active in the BioMAP Diversity PLUS Panel (≤3/148 biomarkers) whereas significant activity was observed for 3R4F (22/148 biomarkers). Toxicity associated biomarker signatures for 3R4F included immunosuppression, skin irritation and thrombosis, with no toxicity signatures seen for the NGPs. BioMAP profiling could effectively be used to differentiate between complex mixtures of cigarette smoke or NGP aerosol extracts in a panel of human primary cell-based assays. Clinical validation of these results will be critical for confirming the utility of BioMAP for screening NGPs for potential adverse human effects.

Indexed as

ACM, aerosol collected massAhR, Aryl hydrocarbon receptorAlternative methodsbPBS, Bubbled phosphate buffered salineCOPD, Chronic obstructive pulmonary diseaseEGFR, epidermal growth factor receptorELISA, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assayEVP, Electronic vapor productHDFn, Human neonatal dermal fibroblastsHTP, Heated Tobacco ProductHUVEC, Human umbilical vein endothelial cellsHYB, Hybrid product containing e-liquid drawn through a tobacco plugIL, interleukinIn vitro assaysISO, International Organization for StandardizationM−CSF, Macrophage colony-stimulating factorMOA, Mechanism of actionmTOR, mechanistic target of rapamycinNext generation productsNGP, Next generation productNRC, National Research CouncilNRF2, Nuclear factor erythroid 2-related factor 2PanelPBMC, Peripheral blood mononuclear cellsPBS, Phosphate buffered salinePhenotypic screeningSRB, Sulforhodamine BTCR, T cell receptorTF, Tissue factorTLR, toll-like receptorTNFα, tumor necrosis factor alphaToxicity signatureTPM, Total particulate matter

Identifiers

PMID34485931
PMCPMC8408431
OpenAlexW3195424650

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.