Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38079418›Full record

ArticleChemical research in toxicology2024

Electrophilic Reactivity of Sulfated Alcohols in the Context of Skin Sensitization.

David W Roberts

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Chemical research in toxicology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

David W RobertsSchool of Pharmacy and Biomolecular Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool L3 3AF, U.K.ORCID 0000-0001-6112-5868
Liverpool John Moores University · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The surfactant sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS), although consistently positive in the murine local lymph node assay (LLNA) for skin sensitization, shows no evidence of being a human sensitizer and is often described as a false positive, lacking structural alerts for sensitization. However, there is evidence of the cinnamyl sulfate anion being the metabolite responsible for the sensitization potential of cinnamyl alcohol to humans and in animal tests. Here, manufacturing chemistry data and physical organic chemistry principles are applied to confirm that SLS is not reactive enough to sensitize, whereas sensitization to cinnamyl alcohol via cinnamyl sulfate is plausible. Sensitization data for several other primary alcohols, including geraniol, farnesol, and possibly hydrocortisone, are also consistent with this mechanism. It seems possible that biosulfation may play a wider role than has previously been recognized in skin sensitization.

Indexed as

AlcoholsDermatitis, Allergic ContactAllergensAnimalsHumansLocal Lymph Node AssayMicePropanolsSkinSulfatesAlcoholsAllergenscinnamyl alcoholPropanolsSulfates

Identifiers

PMID38079418
PMCPMC10792661
OpenAlexW4389547207

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.