ArticleArchives of toxicology2022
How to avoid misinterpretation of dual reporter gene assay data affected by cell damage.
Article in Archives of toxicology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- The differences in drug disposition gene induction by rifampicin and rifabutin are unlikely due to different effects on important pregnane X receptor (NR1I2) splice variants.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2024Article
- Dual-Luciferase Reporter Assay for Prescreening CRISPR (d)Cas9-Mediated Epigenetic Editing on a Plant Promoter Using Human Cells.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2024Article
- Comprehensive in vitro analysis evaluating the variable drug-drug interaction risk of rifampicin compared to rifabutin.Archives of toxicology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The activity of nuclear receptors (e.g., pregnane x receptor, PXR) can be assessed by luminescence-based dual reporter gene assays. Under most conditions, receptor-activated firefly luminescence is normalized to Renilla luminescence, which is triggered by a constitutively active promoter. Simultaneous damage to the cells can however disrupt these signals and thus impair the interpretation of the data. Consequently, this study addressed three important aspects: First, idealized models were described, each highlighting crucial characteristics and important pitfalls of dual PXR reporter gene assays used to evaluate PXR activation or inhibition. Second, these models were supported by experimental data obtained with a strong PXR activator (rifampicin) with low cytotoxicity, a PXR activator with high cytotoxicity (dovitinib), a proposed PXR inhibitor that reportedly has no toxic effects (triptolide), and a cytotoxic control (oxaliplatin). Data were evaluated for relative PXR activity data, individual firefly or Renilla luminescence, and anti-proliferative effects of the compounds (assessed by crystal violet staining). Finally, a step-by-step guide is proposed to avoid misleading set-up of the assay or misinterpretation of the data obtained. Key considerations here include (1) omission of drug concentrations beyond 10-20% proliferation inhibition; (2) observation of Renilla luminescence, because this tends to indicate 'false PXR activation' when it inexplicably decreases; (3) parallel decrease of relative PXR activity and proliferation below baseline levels in conjunction with a sharp decrease in Renilla luminescence indicates 'false PXR antagonism'; (4) non-sigmoidal relationships suggest the absence of concentration dependency.
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.