ArticleCells2022
New Approach Methods for Hazard Identification: A Case Study with Azole Fungicides Affecting Molecular Targets Associated with the Adverse Outcome Pathway for Cholestasis.
Article in Cells, 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Molecular basis of azole fungicide interactions with human estrogen receptor alpha (ERα): an integrated in silico and in vitro toxicological assessment.Archives of toxicology · 2026Article
- Confrontations of the Pathogenic Fungus Colletotrichum graminicola With a Biocontrol Bacterium or a Ubiquitous Fungus Trigger Synthesis of Secondary Metabolites With Lead Structures of Synthetic Fungicides.Environmental microbiology · 2025Article
- Changes in cultivation parameters impact cytochrome P450 gene transcription in HepaRG cells: implications forFrontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- From hazard to risk prioritization: a case study to predict drug-induced cholestasis using physiologically based kinetic modeling.Archives of toxicology · 2024Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Triazole fungicides such as propiconazole (Pi) or tebuconazole (Te) show hepatotoxicity in vivo, e.g., hypertrophy and vacuolization of liver cells following interaction with nuclear receptors such as PXR (pregnane-X-receptor) and CAR (constitutive androstane receptor). Accordingly, azoles affect gene expression associated with these adverse outcomes in vivo but also in human liver cells in vitro. Additionally, genes indicative of liver cholestasis are affected in vivo and in vitro. We therefore analyzed the capability of Pi and Te to cause cholestasis in an adverse outcome pathway (AOP)-driven approach in hepatic cells of human origin in vitro, considering also previous in vivo studies. Bile salt export pump (BSEP) activity assays confirmed that both azoles are weak inhibitors of BSEP. They alternate the expression of various cholestasis-associated target genes and proteins as well as the mitochondrial membrane function. Published in vivo data, however, demonstrate that neither Pi nor Te cause cholestasis in rodent bioassays. This discrepancy can be explained by the in vivo concentrations of both azoles being well below their EC50 for BSEP inhibition. From a regulatory perspective, this illustrates that toxicogenomics and human in vitro models are valuable tools to detect the potential of a substance to cause a specific type of toxicity. To come to a sound regulatory conclusion on the in vivo relevance of such a finding, results will have to be considered in a broader context also including toxicokinetics in a weight-of-evidence approach.
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.