| Title |
The effect of electronic cigarette and tobacco smoke exposure on COPD bronchial epithelial cell inflammatory responses
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.2147/copd.s157728 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Andrew Higham, Declan Bostock, George Booth, Josiah V Dungwa, Dave Singh |
| Abstract |
Electronic cigarettes (e-cigs) are used to help smoking cessation. However, these devices contain harmful chemicals, and there are safety concerns. We have investigated the effects of e-cigs on the inflammatory response and viability of COPD bronchial epithelial cells (BECs). BECs from COPD patients and controls were exposed to e-cig vapor extract (ECVE) and the levels of interleukin (IL)-6, C-X-C motif ligand 8 (CXCL8), and lactate dehydrogenase release were measured. We also examined the effect of ECVE pretreatment on polyinosinic:polycytidylic acid (poly I:C)-stimulated cytokine release from BECs. Parallel experiments using Calu-3 cells were performed. Comparisons were made with cigarette smoke extract (CSE). ECVE and CSE caused an increase in the release of IL-6 and CXCL8 from Calu-3 cells. ECVE only caused toxicity in BECs and Calu-3 cells. Furthermore, ECVE and CSE dampened poly I:C-stimulated C-X-C motif ligand 10 release from both cell culture models, reaching statistical significance for CSE at an optical density of 0.3. ECVE caused toxicity and reduced the antiviral response to poly I:C. This raises concerns over the safety of e-cig use. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 30 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 8 | 27% |
| United States | 3 | 10% |
| Australia | 3 | 10% |
| Panama | 1 | 3% |
| Israel | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 14 | 47% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 20 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 17% |
| Scientists | 4 | 13% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 160 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 160 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 31 | 19% |
| Researcher | 21 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 8% |
| Other | 7 | 4% |
| Other | 16 | 10% |
| Unknown | 60 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 14% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 14 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 13 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 4% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 6 | 4% |
| Other | 31 | 19% |
| Unknown | 67 | 42% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 520. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 April 2021.
All research outputs
#48,511
of 25,418,993 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#2
of 2,578 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,182
of 344,926 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#1
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,418,993 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,578 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 344,926 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.