ArticlePloS one2021
Analysis of electric cigarette liquid effect on mouse brain tumor growth through EGFR and ERK activation.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Toxicity and Appeal of Flavoured E-Cigarettes and Flavour Ban Outcomes: A Narrative Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Review
- Clinical Impact of Vaping.Toxics · 2025Review
- Evidence update on the cancer risk of vaping e-cigarettes: A systematic review.Tobacco induced diseases · 2025Review
- Toxicological Aspects Associated with Consumption from Electronic Nicotine Delivery System (ENDS): Focus on Heavy Metals Exposure and Cancer Risk.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Electronic cigarette liquids impair metabolic cooperation and alter proteomic profiles in V79 cells.Respiratory research · 2022Article
- A Review of Toxicity Mechanism Studies of Electronic Cigarettes on Respiratory System.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRecently, electric cigarettes with liquid (e-liquid) were introduced as an alternative to tobacco smoking. They were promoted as possible cessation aids and were considered to be potentially less harmful than traditional tobacco-based cigarettes. However, there is little information on the toxicants present in e-liquids and their possible carcinogenic effects.
methodsWestern blot analysis was performed to identify the protein levels of cancer progression related signal transducers. Patient-derived brain tumor cells (CSC2) were injected into mouse brains and tumor growth was then observed by performing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining of the whole brain. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) staining and Immunofluorescence staining were performed to study the expression of pEGFR and pERK.
resultsWestern blotting revealed that e-liquids increased pEGFR and pERK expression in a dose dependent manner. Animal experiments revealed that the e-liquid treated group had accelerated tumor growth and poor prognosis compared to the vehicle group. Histological staining showed activation of pEGFR and pERK in the e-liquid treated group.
conclusionOur study revealed that e-liquid activates pEGFR and pERK, leading to accelerated brain tumor growth and poor prognosis.
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.