ArticleScientific reports2025
Evaluation of the genotoxic and transformation potential induced by asbestos compared to cleavage fragments.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cleavage fragments and asbestos fibers: better characterization of minerals and improved cell models are needed to elucidate toxicity differences.Archives of toxicology · 2025Article
- Burden and trends of cancer attributable to occupational asbestos exposure in China from 1990 to 2021.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
The World Health Organization has confirmed that asbestos fibres are carcinogenic, claiming that asbestos-related diseases should be eradicated worldwide. Actinolite, amosite, anthophyllite, chrysotile, crocidolite, and tremolite are regulated asbestiform mineral phases. However, in nature, asbestos minerals occur either in a fibrous and asbestiform (original morphology characterized by high length-to-width ratio and provided of high tensile strength and flexibility) or fibrous but not asbestiform appearance. This study used human epithelial cancer cells (A549) and a mouse fibroblast cell line (Balb/c 3T3) to compare the genotoxic and carcinogenic effects of a sample of amphibole asbestos with samples of fibrous not asbestiform named cleavage fragments (CV) obtained by grinding non-asbestiform amphiboles. The results showed that exposure of alveolar lung cells to asbestos and elongated mineral particles, in the habit of cleavage fragments (CF) derived from the grinding of non-asbestiform amphiboles and serpentines, causes cytotoxic effects, oxidative stress and genotoxic damage. Moreover, CF obtained from an actinolite schist induces a transformation effect in the Balb/c 3T3 model. Together, these findings highlight the importance of considering CF as a potential threat to human health since it can cause genotoxic damage by triggering cellular transformation processes that overlap with the mechanisms involved in the carcinogenesis processes of asbestos.
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.