Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34909715›Full record

ArticleJID innovations : skin science from molecules to population health2021

Determination of Chemical Irritation Potential Using a Defined Gene Signature Set on Tissue-Engineered Human Skin Equivalents.

Amy L Harding, Craig Murdoch, Simon Danby, Md Zobaer Hasan, Hirofumi Nakanishi, Tetsuo Furuno, Sirwan Hadad, Robert Turner, Helen E Colley

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JID innovations : skin science from molecules to population health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Irritated Skin Is Not Sensitive Skin.JID innovations : skin science from molecules to population health · 2021
    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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Amy L HardingThe School of Clinical Dentistry, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Craig MurdochThe School of Clinical Dentistry, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Simon DanbySheffield Dermatology Research, Department of Infection, Immunity and Cardiovascular Disease, The Medical School, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Md Zobaer HasanSafety Design Centre, Rohto Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd, Kyoto, Japan.
Hirofumi NakanishiSafety Design Centre, Rohto Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd, Kyoto, Japan.
Tetsuo FurunoSafety Design Centre, Rohto Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd, Kyoto, Japan.
Sirwan HadadSheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Robert TurnerResearch Software Engineering Sheffield, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Helen E ColleyThe School of Clinical Dentistry, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
University of Sheffield · GBRohto Pharmaceutical (Japan) · JPSheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There are no physical or visual manifestations that define skin sensitivity or irritation; a subjective diagnosis is made on the basis of the evaluation of clinical presentations, including burning, prickling, erythema, and itching. Adverse skin reaction in response to topically applied products is common and can limit the use of dermatological or cosmetic products. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of human skin equivalents based on immortalized skin keratinocytes and evaluate the potential of a 22-gene panel in combination with multivariate analysis to discriminate between chemicals known to act as irritants and those that do not. Test compounds were applied topically to full-thickness human skin equivalent or human ex vivo skin and gene signatures determined for known irritants and nonirritants. Principle component analysis showed the discriminatory potential of the 22-gene panel. Linear discrimination analysis, performed to further refine the gene set for a more high-throughput analysis, identified a putative seven-gene panel (

Indexed as

CA, cinnamaldehydeCAP, capsaicinCo-DEA, cocamide diethanolamineCo-MEA, cocamide monoethanolamineCON, controlH2O, waterHDF, human dermal fibroblastHSE, human skin equivalentKC, keratinocyteLA, lactic acidLDA, linear discrimination analysisLDH, lactate dehydrogenaseMMP, matrix metalloproteinaseMP, methylparabenN-LA, neutralized lactic acidPCA, principal component analysisTEER, transepithelial electrical resistance

Identifiers

PMID34909715
PMCPMC8659397
OpenAlexW3138154492

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.