ArticleF1000Research2022
Cytotoxicity of Peruvian propolis and
Article in F1000Research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of Propolis and Diclofenac Sodium Eye Drops for Animals: Physicochemical Properties and In Vitro Biological Activity.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Chitosan Nanoparticles Entrapping AqueousPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Biomaterials Based on Bee Products and Their Effectiveness in Soft Tissue Regeneration.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- In-Vitro Effect of Manuka Honey / Propolis Toothpastes on Bacteria and Biofilm Associated with Caries and Gingivitis.Oral health & preventive dentistry · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It is indisputable that every day it is demonstrated that natural products present diverse therapeutic benefits, which has boosted their incorporation within various products for clinical use. However, this must be accompanied by knowledge of their effect on cell lines to ensure their use is safe. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cytotoxic effect of two ethanolic extracts based on Peruvian natural products, on three human cell lines. Cervical cancer cell lines (HeLa), human gingival fibroblasts (HGF-1 - ATCC CRL-2014) (HGF-1) and peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) were cultured and subsequently treated with preparations of ethanolic extracts of propolis (EEP) and Psidium guajava (EEG) from a concentration of 50 mg/mL to 0.024 mg/mL, by the 3-(4,5- dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazole bromide reduction assay. At a concentration of 0.24 mg/mL EEG, viability of 99.7±1.24%, 99.8±2.2% and 99.7±2.7% was observed in HeLa, HGF-1 and PBMCs, respectively; >90% cell viability values were observed with EPP at 0.024 mg/mL, with HGF-1 showing the highest viability (96.9±1.15%). A dose-dependent effect was observed for both extracts with a decrease in cell viability as concentrations increased (up to 50 mg/mL). EEP and EEG extracts at low concentrations do not show cytotoxicity in human cell lines, these findings are an advance in the preclinical evaluation on their safety and open a continuity to further studies for their potential applications in dentistry and medicine.
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.