Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34909043›Full record

ArticleResearch in pharmaceutical sciences2022

Comparison of four methods of colon cancer cell lysates preparation for

Mohammad Roufarshbaf, Nafiseh Esmaeil, Vajihe Akbari

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Research in pharmaceutical sciences, 2022. 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
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 42% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mohammad RoufarshbafStudent Research Committee, School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, I.R. Iran.
Nafiseh EsmaeilDepartment of Immunology, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, I.R. Iran.
Vajihe AkbariDepartment of Pharmaceutical Biotechnology and Isfahan Pharmaceutical Research Center, School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, I.R. Iran.
Isfahan University of Medical Sciences · IR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeOne of the most effective methods for the development of dendritic cell (DC)-based cancer immunotherapy is EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH: Peripheral blood monocytes were isolated from healthy volunteers and incubated with granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor and interleukin (IL)-4 to differentiate into DCs in 10 days. Morphological properties, phenotype characteristics (i.e. CD83 and CD86), and cytokine production (i.e. IL-10 and interferon gamma) of DCs loaded with four different TCLs (i.e. freeze-thaw, hypochlorous acid (HOCl), hyperthermia, and UV irradiation) were evaluated. FINDINGS/

resultsHOCl preparations led to the generation of DCs with higher surface expression of maturation biomarkers (particularly CD83), while UV preparations resulted in DCs with lower levels of surface biomarkers compared to freeze-thawed preparations. The supernatant of DCs pulsed with HOCl preparation showed significantly higher levels of interferon gamma and lower levels of IL-10 compared with the other groups. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Our results suggest that pulsing DCs with HOCl preparation may be superior to other TCLs preparation strategies, possibly due to induction of rapid necrotic cell death.

Indexed as

Antigen loadingColorectal cancerDendritic cellHypochlorous acidTumor cell lysate.

Identifiers

PMID34909043
PMCPMC8621848
OpenAlexW3212020199

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.