ArticleInternational journal of molecular sciences2026
Comparative Effects of Acrolein and Glyoxal on Redox Homeostasis, Antioxidant Defense and Membrane Properties in Human Peripheral Blood Mononuclear Cells: An In Vitro Study.
Article in International journal of molecular sciences, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Acrolein (ACR) and glyoxal (GO) are highly reactive carbonyls originating from endogenous metabolism, environmental pollution, and thermal food processing. This study compares the toxic mechanisms and redox effects of a 24 h exposure to ACR (30, 60, 90 µM) and GO (2, 5, 10 mM) in PBMCs. We assessed cell viability, lipid membrane fluidity, reactive oxygen/nitrogen species (ROS/RNS), free protein functional groups, reduced glutathione (GSH), non-enzymatic antioxidant capacity (NEAC), antioxidant enzyme activity (CAT, GPx), and protein expression levels (CAT, SOD1). Both aldehydes reduced viability in a concentration-dependent manner (ACR was over 30-fold more toxic than GO based on viability curves). These toxins increased membrane fluidity near the surface, while GO also altered the hydrophobic core. Both triggered a profound accumulation of ROS/RNS. At specific dose thresholds (ACR ≥ 60 µM; GO ≥ 5 mM), both toxins depleted GSH and NEAC, decreased protein thiol/amino groups, and suppressed CAT/GPx catalytic activity and CAT/SOD1 protein expression. In conclusion, ACR emerged as a markedly more potent inducer of oxidative stress and antioxidant failure than GO in PBMCs, disrupting both non-enzymatic (GSH, NEAC) and enzymatic (CAT, GPx, SOD1) defenses. These results support prioritizing ACR in exposure risk assessments and developing biomarkers of carbonyl-induced immune dysfunction.
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.