4.7 Article

Comparative biological impacts of an aerosol from carbon-heated tobacco and smoke from cigarettes on human respiratory epithelial cultures: A systems toxicology assessment

Journal

FOOD AND CHEMICAL TOXICOLOGY
Volume 115, Issue -, Pages 109-126

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fct.2018.02.063

Keywords

Systems toxicology; Respiratory mucosa; Cigarette smoke; Modified risk tobacco product; Air-liquid interface

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The biological impact of an aerosol of a potential modified-risk tobacco product, carbon heated tobacco product 1.2 (CHTP1.2), was comprehensively assessed for the first time in vitro using human small airway and nasal epithelial models following a systems toxicology approach. The potentially reduced effects of CHTP1.2 aerosol exposure were benchmarked against those of 3R4F cigarette smoke at similar nicotine concentrations. Experimental repetitions were conducted for which new batches of small airway and nasal cultures were exposed to CHTP1.2 aerosol or 3R4F smoke for 28 minutes. The biological impacts were determined based on a collection of endpoints including morphology, cytotoxicity, proinflammatory mediator profiles, cytochrome P450 1A1/1B1 activity, global mRNA and microRNA changes and proteome profiles. Alterations in mRNA expression were detected in cultures exposed to CHTP1.2 aerosol, without noticeable morphological changes and cytotoxicity, and minimal impact on proinflammatory mediator and proteome profiles. The changes linked to CHTP1.2 aerosol exposure, when observed, were transient. However, the impact of 3R4F smoke exposure persisted long post-exposure and greater than CHTP1.2 aerosol. Morphological changes were observed only in cultures exposed to 3R4F smoke. The lower biological effects of CHTP1.2 aerosol than 3R4F smoke exposure were observed similarly in both small airway and nasal epithelial cultures.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available