ArticleFrontiers in toxicology2025
Comparative evaluation of artificial saliva and complete artificial saliva as solvent vehicles for
Article in Frontiers in toxicology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Oral tobacco-derived nicotine (OTDN) pouches are tobacco-free products and are considered potential reduced-risk alternatives to traditional tobacco products within the tobacco harm reduction framework. Despite their growing popularity, the local oral toxicity profiles of OTDNs remain poorly characterized. Although Methods: Extraction efficiency was first assessed using the Swedish-style reference snus pouch CRP1.1 extracted in AS and CAS from 10% to 30% w/v concentrations. Nicotine and tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs) were quantified for extraction efficiency. The biological effects of AS and CAS, including cytotoxicity, oxidative stress, and inflammatory responses, were evaluated across four Results: The results showed comparable nicotine extraction efficiency between AS and CAS, with no significant impact from pouch cutting size or extraction duration. However, AS demonstrated higher efficiency in extracting TSNAs compared to CAS at 10% and 20% w/v, with the extraction efficiency decreasing as extract concentrations increased.Neither AS nor CAS induced cytotoxicity in any of the oral models. CAS triggered oxidative stress at the highest concentration in ORL-300-FT. Both AS and CAS elicited concentration-dependent pro-inflammatory responses in NHGFs and NHOEs. Specifically, AS increased both IL-6 and IL-8 secretion in NHOEs, while CAS elevated IL-8 release in both NHGFs and NHOEs but exhibited opposing effects on IL-6 secretion in NHOEs. In the organotypic tissue models, both AS and CAS reduced IL-6 secretion without significantly affecting IL-8 levels. Conclusion: These findings emphasize the importance of evaluating additional biological responses alongside cytotoxicity in vehicle control studies. CAS and ORL-300-FT were chosen for future testing due to their minimal vehicle effects and greater biological relevance, providing a robust platform for assessing oral tobacco product toxicity.
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.