ArticlePloS one2023
222 nm far-UVC efficiently introduces nerve damage in Caenorhabditis elegans.
Article in PloS one, 2023. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multiple ShKT domain-containing MUL-1 proteins act as redox-responsive modulators of oxidative stress signaling in C. elegans.Molecules and cells · 2026Article
- Review
- Electron-Beam-Pumped UVC Emitters Based on an (Al,Ga)N Material System.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Far-ultraviolet radiation C light (far-UVC; 222 nm wavelength) has received attention as a safer light for killing pathogenic bacteria and viruses, as no or little DNA damage is observed after irradiation in mammalian skin models. Far-UVC does not penetrate deeply into tissues; therefore, it cannot reach the underlying critical basal cells. However, it was unclear whether far-UVC (222-UVC) irradiation could cause more biological damage at shallower depths than the 254 nm UVC irradiation (254-UVC), which penetrates more deeply. This study investigated the biological effects of 222- and 254-UVC on the small and transparent model organism Caenorhabditis elegans. At the same energy level of irradiation, 222-UVC introduced slightly less cyclobutane pyrimidine dimer damage to naked DNA in solution than 254-UVC. The survival of eggs laid during 0-4 h after irradiation showed a marked decrease with 254-UVC but not 222-UVC. In addition, defect of chromosomal condensation was observed in a full-grown oocyte by 254-UVC irradiation. In contrast, 222-UVC had a significant effect on the loss of motility of C. elegans. The sensory nervous system, which includes dopamine CEP and PVD neurons on the body surface, was severely damaged by 222-UVC, but not by the same dose of 254-UVC. Interestingly, increasing 254-UVC irradiation by about 10-fold causes similar damage to CEP neurons. These results suggest that 222-UVC is less penetrating, so energy transfer occurs more effectively in tissues near the surface, causing more severe damage than 254-UVC.
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.