ArticlePloS one2024
Vocal fold fibroblasts and exposure to vibration in vitro: Does sex matter?
Article in PloS one, 2024. 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.
- Biophysical aspects of mechanotransduction in cells and their physiological/biological implications in vocal fold vibration: a narrative review.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Studies have shown that certain vocal fold pathologies are more common in one sex than the other. This is often explained by differences in the composition of the lamina propria and anatomical differences between female and male vocal folds, resulting in e.g. different fundamental frequencies. Here, we investigated a potential sex-specific voice frequency effect in an in vitro setting using vocal fold fibroblasts from one male and one female donor with and without cigarette smoke extract (CSE) addition. After exposure to either male or female vibration frequency with or without CSE, cells and supernatants were harvested. Gene and protein analysis were performed by means of qPCR, western blot, ELISA and Luminex. We found that exposure of cells to both male and female vibration pattern did not elicit significant changes in the expression of extracellular matrix-, inflammation-, and fibrosis-related genes, compared to control cells. The addition of CSE to vibration downregulated the gene expression of COL1A1 in cells exposed to the female vibration pattern, as well as induced MMP1 and PTGS2 in cells exposed to both female and male vibration pattern. The protein expression of MMP1 and COX2 was found to be significantly upregulated only in cells exposed to CSE and female vibration pattern. To conclude, different vibration patterns alone did not cause different responses of the cells. However, the female vibration pattern in combination with CSE had a tendency to elicit/maintain more pro-inflammatory responses in cells than the male vibration pattern.
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.