Cilostazol protective effect on nedaplatin-induced genotoxicity in cultured human lymphocytes.

Karem H Alzoubi, Abeer M Rababa'h, Omar F Khabour, Fian Nuseir

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Toxicology reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Karem H AlzoubiDepartment of Pharmacy Practice and Pharmacotherapeutics, College of Pharmacy, The University of Sharjah, Sharjah 27272, United Arab Emirates.

Abeer M Rababa'hDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan.

Omar F KhabourDepartment of Medical Laboratory Sciences, Faculty of Applied Medical Sciences, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan.

Fian NuseirDepartment of Medical Laboratory Sciences, Faculty of Applied Medical Sciences, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Nedaplatin has demonstrated remarkable efficacy in combating various malignancies. However, the administration of nedaplatin has been associated with the induction of DNA damage within normal cells. Cilostazol is a phosphodiesterase III inhibitor with an antioxidant mechanism that could protect cells from genotoxicity. We aimed to evaluate the genotoxic effect of nedaplatin on cultured human lymphocytes and the potential protective effect of cilostazol on chromosomal damage induced by nedaplatin. Methods: The proposed nedaplatin's genotoxic effect was studied Results: Nedaplatin significantly increased the frequency of SCEs compared to control and cilostazol-treated cells. The chromosomal injury induced by nedaplatin was significantly reduced by pretreatment of cells with cilostazol (P < 0.0001). Treating with cilostazol alone also reduced the frequency of SCEs, MI, and PI compared to the control group. Nedaplatin induced significant decreases in the MI and PI compared to the control group. Pretreatment with cilostazol partially debilitated the nedaplatin-induced changes in MI but not PI. Conclusion: Cilostazol ameliorated the genotoxicity of nedaplatin in cultured human lymphocytes.

Indexed as

CilostazolGenotoxicityHuman cultured lymphocytesMitotic indexNedaplatinSister chromatid exchanges

Identifiers

PMID39917038

DOI10.1016/j.toxrep.2025.101928

PMCPMC11800108

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.