Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36129398›Full record

ArticleALTEX2023

Evaluation of 147 perfluoroalkyl substances for immunotoxic and other (patho)physiological activities through phenotypic screening of human primary cells.

Keith A Houck, Katie Paul Friedman, Madison Feshuk, Grace Patlewicz, Marci Smeltz, M Scott Clifton, Barbara A Wetmore, Sharlene Velichko, Antal Berenyi, Ellen L Berg

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in ALTEX, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Incorporating new approach methods (NAMs) data in dose-response assessments: The future is now!Journal of toxicology and environmental health. Part B, Critical reviews · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Evaluation of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)Chemical research in toxicology · 2023
    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

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Keith A HouckCenter for Computational Toxicology and Exposure, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Katie Paul FriedmanCenter for Computational Toxicology and Exposure, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Madison FeshukCenter for Computational Toxicology and Exposure, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Grace PatlewiczCenter for Computational Toxicology and Exposure, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Marci SmeltzCenter for Computational Toxicology and Exposure, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
M Scott CliftonCenter for Computational Toxicology and Exposure, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Barbara A WetmoreCenter for Computational Toxicology and Exposure, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Sharlene VelichkoEurofins Discovery, Burlingame, CA, USA.
Antal BerenyiEurofins Discovery, Burlingame, CA, USA.
Ellen L BergEurofins Discovery, Burlingame, CA, USA.
Environmental Protection Agency · US

Funding

Intramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A structurally diverse set of 147 per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) was screened in a panel of 12 human primary cell systems by measuring 148 biomarkers relevant to (patho)physiological pathways to inform hypotheses about potential mechanistic effects of data-poor PFAS in human model systems. This analysis focused on immunosuppressive activity, which was previously reported as an in vivo effect of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), by comparing PFAS responses to four pharmacological immunosuppressants. The PFOS response profile had little correlation with reference immunosuppressants, suggesting in vivo activity does not occur by similar mechanisms. The PFOA response profile did share features with the profile of dexamethasone, although some distinct features were lacking. Other PFAS, including 2,2,3,3-tetrafluoropropyl acrylate, demonstrated more similarity to the reference immunosuppressants but with additional activities not found in the reference immunosuppressive drugs. Correlation of PFAS profiles with a database of environmental chemical responses and pharmacological probes identified potential mechanisms of bioactivity for some PFAS, including responses similar to ubiquitin ligase inhibitors, deubiquitylating enzyme (DUB) inhibitors, and thioredoxin reductase inhibitors. Approximately 21% of the 147 PFAS with confirmed sample quality were bioactive at nominal testing concentrations in the 1-60 micromolar range in these human primary cell systems. These data provide new hypotheses for mechanisms of action for a subset of PFAS and may further aid in development of a PFAS categorization strategy useful in safety assessment.

Indexed as

Alkanesulfonic AcidsEnvironmental PollutantsFluorocarbonsCaprylatesHumansAlkanesulfonic AcidsCaprylatesEnvironmental PollutantsFluorocarbonsperfluorooctane sulfonic acidperfluorooctanoic acidchemical safetyimmunosuppressionperfluoroalkyl substancesprimary cellsproteosome

Identifiers

PMID36129398
PMCPMC10331698
OpenAlexW4296713605

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.