ArticleNan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University2022
[Comparison of three commercial photosensitizers for efficiency of inducing immunogenic cell death in anti-tumor immunotherapy].
Article in Nan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical application of immunogenic cell death inducers in cancer immunotherapy: turning cold tumors hot.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare 3 commercial immunogenic cell death (ICD) inducers, namely Chlorin e6 (Ce6), Neutral Red (NR), and Rose Bengal Sodium salt (RB), for their photosensitive properties, efficacy for photodynamic therapy (PDT) and ICD induction efficiency in antitumor immunotherapy.
methodsReactive oxygen species (ROS) probes were used to evaluate the photosensitivity of the 3 ICD inducers, and their capacity for inducing intracellular ROS production was evaluated using a DCFH-DA probe. The cytotoxicity and biocompatibility of the 3 photosensitizers were compared using a CCK-8 kit, and their ICD-inducing efficiency was assessed by detecting the levels of surface-exposed calreticulin (ecto-CRT), high mobility group protein 1 (HMGB1) and adenosine triphosphate (ATP). In the animal experiment, BALB/c mouse models bearing 4T1 cellderived subcutaneous tumor were given intratumoral injection of Ce6 or NR solution (30 μL, 5 mg/mL), followed 2 h later by white light irradiation for 10 min (400 mW/cm
resultsAmong the 3 photosensitizers, Ce6 exhibited the strongest ROS-inducing capability and killing effect on the tumor cells. The results of ectoCRT, HMGB1 and ATP level detection all demonstrated a stronger ICD induction ability of Ce6. In the tumor-bearing mice, the tumor growth in Ce6 and NR groups was significantly inhibited after the treatment. The percentages of CD8
conclusionAmong the 3 photosensitizers, Ce6 has the highest efficiency for inducing ROS production with the strongest PDT efficacy and ICD induction capability. Ce6 can also increase the number and function of CD8
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.