ArticleArchives of toxicology2026
Benzo[a]pyrene vs. Tapinarof: unraveling ligand-specific AHR transcriptional responses in immortalized keratinocytes.
Article in Archives of toxicology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AHR) integrates structurally diverse ligands to control xenobiotic metabolism, immune responses, and cell fate decisions. Ligand-specific AHR effects in human skin are increasingly recognized, but underlying mechanisms remain incompletely understood. Here, we compared transcriptomic responses of immortalized human keratinocytes to the environmental AHR ligand benzo[a]pyrene (BaP) and the therapeutic AHR agonist Tapinarof. Using AHR-proficient and AHR-mutant HaCaT keratinocytes, we performed bulk RNA-sequencing, pathway enrichment analysis, and targeted validation by qPCR and immunoblot analyses. Both ligands elicited largely AHR-dependent yet distinct gene expression programs. As expected, both ligands increased the expression of canonical AHR/ARNT pathway target genes, including cytochrome P450 (CYP) 1A1, CYP1B1, and artemin. However, BaP uniquely activated a non-canonical AHR signaling pathway involving epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and downstream signaling that stimulates NRF2 transcriptional activity. Tapinarof, while initiating similar initial events (e.g., c-Src phosphorylation), interfered with this pathway by inhibiting phosphoinositide 3-kinase/AKT signaling. Another gene set related to antiviral responses was also solely modulated by BaP and sensitive to CYP1A inhibition. This gene set also responded to etoposide, which induces DNA double-strand breaks independently of AHR. Indeed, inhibiting CYP1A-catalyzed metabolic activation of BaP reduced the level of phosphorylated histone H2AX, a marker for DNA double-strand breaks, and respective gene expression. Collectively, our data show that BaP and Tapinarof engage overlapping but mechanistically distinct AHR-dependent networks in immortalized keratinocytes, with BaP uniquely combining non-canonical AHR-EGFR-NRF2 signaling and CYP1A1-dependent genotoxic stress responses. Our results further suggest an off-target effect of Tapinarof, i.e., AKT inhibition.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42907557What 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.