Sign in to use this feature.

Years

Between: -

Subjects

remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline

Journals

Article Types

Countries / Regions

Search Results (6)

Search Parameters:
Keywords = smokeless tobacco extract

Order results
Result details
Results per page
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
19 pages, 4250 KiB  
Article
Flavor Classification/Categorization and Differential Toxicity of Oral Nicotine Pouches (ONPs) in Oral Gingival Epithelial Cells and Bronchial Epithelial Cells
by Sadiya Bi Shaikh, Wai Cheung Tung, Cortney Pang, Joseph Lucas, Dongmei Li and Irfan Rahman
Toxics 2022, 10(11), 660; https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics10110660 - 31 Oct 2022
Cited by 17 | Viewed by 9146
Abstract
Oral nicotine pouches (ONPs) are a modern form of smokeless tobacco products sold by several brands in the U.S., which comprise a significant portion of non-combustible nicotine-containing product (NCNP) sales to date. ONPs are available in various flavors and may contain either tobacco-derived [...] Read more.
Oral nicotine pouches (ONPs) are a modern form of smokeless tobacco products sold by several brands in the U.S., which comprise a significant portion of non-combustible nicotine-containing product (NCNP) sales to date. ONPs are available in various flavors and may contain either tobacco-derived nicotine (TDN) or tobacco-free nicotine (TFN). The growth in popularity of these products has raised concerns that flavored ONPs may cause adverse oral health effects and promote systemic toxic effects due to nicotine and other ONP by-products being absorbed into the circulatory system through oral mucosa. We hypothesized that flavored ONPs are unsafe and likely to cause oral and pulmonary inflammation in oral and respiratory epithelial cells. Before analyzing the effects of ONPs, we first classified ONPs sold in the U.S. based on their flavor and the flavor category to which they belonged using a wheel diagram. Human gingival epithelial cells (HGEP) were treated with flavored ONP extracts of tobacco (original, smooth), menthol (wintergreen and cool cider), and fruit flavor (americana and citrus), each from the TDN and TFN groups. The levels of ONP-induced inflammatory cytokine release (TNF-α, IL-6, and IL-8) by ELISA, cellular reactive oxygen species (ROS) production by CellRox Green, and cytotoxicity by lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) release assay in HGEP cells were assessed. Flavored ONP extracts elicited differential toxicities in a dose- and extract-dependent manner in HGEP cells 24 h post-treatment. Both fruit TDN and TFN extracts resulted in the greatest cytotoxicity. Tobacco- and fruit-flavored, but not menthol-flavored, ONPs resulted in increased ROS production 4 h post-treatment. Flavored ONPs led to differential cytokine release (TNF-α, IL-6, and IL-8) which varied by flavor (menthol, tobacco, or fruit) and nicotine (TDN vs. TFN) 24 h post-treatment. Menthol-flavored ONPs led to the most significant TNF-α release; fruit TFN resulted in the most significant IL-6 release; and fruit TDN and tobacco TFN led to the highest release of IL-8. Subsequently, human bronchial epithelial cells (16-HBE and BEAS-2B) were also treated with flavored ONP extracts, and similar assays were evaluated. Here, the lowest concentration treatments displayed increased cytotoxicity. The most striking response was observed among cells treated with spearmint and tobacco flavored ONPs. Our data suggest that flavored ONPs are unsafe and likely to cause systemic and local toxicological responses during chronic usage. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Novel Methods in Toxicology Research)
Show Figures

Figure 1

10 pages, 297 KiB  
Article
What Can We Learn about the Bias of Microbiome Studies from Analyzing Data from Mock Communities?
by Mo Li, Robert E. Tyx, Angel J. Rivera, Ni Zhao and Glen A. Satten
Genes 2022, 13(10), 1758; https://doi.org/10.3390/genes13101758 - 28 Sep 2022
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 2172
Abstract
It is known that data from both 16S and shotgun metagenomics studies are subject to biases that cause the observed relative abundances of taxa to differ from their true values. Model community analyses, in which the relative abundances of all taxa in the [...] Read more.
It is known that data from both 16S and shotgun metagenomics studies are subject to biases that cause the observed relative abundances of taxa to differ from their true values. Model community analyses, in which the relative abundances of all taxa in the sample are known by construction, seem to offer the hope that these biases can be measured. However, it is unclear whether the bias we measure in a mock community analysis is the same as we measure in a sample in which taxa are spiked in at known relative abundance, or if the biases we measure in spike-in samples is the same as the bias we would measure in a real (e.g., biological) sample. Here, we consider these questions in the context of 16S rRNA measurements on three sets of samples: the commercially available Zymo cells model community; the Zymo model community mixed with Swedish Snus, a smokeless tobacco product that is virtually bacteria-free; and a set of commercially available smokeless tobacco products. Each set of samples was subject to four different extraction protocols. The goal of our analysis is to determine whether the patterns of bias observed in each set of samples are the same, i.e., can we learn about the bias in the commercially available smokeless tobacco products by studying the Zymo cells model community? Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Statistical Analysis of Microbiome Data: From Methods to Application)
10 pages, 266 KiB  
Article
Determination of Nicotine-Related Impurities in Nicotine Pouches and Tobacco-Containing Products by Liquid Chromatography–Tandem Mass Spectrometry
by Rozanna Avagyan, Maya Spasova and Johan Lindholm
Separations 2021, 8(6), 77; https://doi.org/10.3390/separations8060077 - 3 Jun 2021
Cited by 13 | Viewed by 8091
Abstract
Smokeless tobacco products and nicotine-containing tobacco-free oral pouches have increased in popularity in recent years. They are associated with far fewer health hazards compared to cigarettes. Nicotine pouches are filled with non-tobacco filler and nicotine. The nicotine used in nicotine pouches usually comes [...] Read more.
Smokeless tobacco products and nicotine-containing tobacco-free oral pouches have increased in popularity in recent years. They are associated with far fewer health hazards compared to cigarettes. Nicotine pouches are filled with non-tobacco filler and nicotine. The nicotine used in nicotine pouches usually comes from the extraction of tobacco; thus, related alkaloids may be found as impurities at low levels. Moreover, nicotine degradation products are formed because of microbial action, flavor oxidation, exposure to high temperatures etc. Currently, there are no published or recommended methods for the analysis of nicotine degradants in nicotine pouches. Here, we present a sensitive and selective liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry method for the simultaneous determination of seven nicotine-related impurities. All seven analytes and corresponding deuterated internal standards were separated within 3.5 min, including 1 min equilibration. The method was fully validated, showing good linearity with correlation coefficients >0.996 for all analytes, good extraction yields ranging from 78% to 110%, limits of detection between 0.08 and 0.56 µg/g and limits of quantification between 0.27 and 2.04 µg/g. Although the method was mainly developed to determine the degradants of nicotine in nicotine pouches, it was validated and performed well on a broader range of tobacco-containing products. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

15 pages, 826 KiB  
Article
AKR1C1 as a Biomarker for Differentiating the Biological Effects of Combustible from Non-Combustible Tobacco Products
by Sangsoon Woo, Hong Gao, David Henderson, Wolfgang Zacharias, Gang Liu, Quynh T. Tran and G.L. Prasad
Genes 2017, 8(5), 132; https://doi.org/10.3390/genes8050132 - 3 May 2017
Cited by 16 | Viewed by 5557
Abstract
Smoking has been established as a major risk factor for developing oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC), but less attention has been paid to the effects of smokeless tobacco products. Our objective is to identify potential biomarkers to distinguish the biological effects of combustible [...] Read more.
Smoking has been established as a major risk factor for developing oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC), but less attention has been paid to the effects of smokeless tobacco products. Our objective is to identify potential biomarkers to distinguish the biological effects of combustible tobacco products from those of non-combustible ones using oral cell lines. Normal human gingival epithelial cells (HGEC), non-metastatic (101A) and metastatic (101B) OSCC cell lines were exposed to different tobacco product preparations (TPPs) including cigarette smoke total particulate matter (TPM), whole-smoke conditioned media (WS-CM), smokeless tobacco extract in complete artificial saliva (STE), or nicotine (NIC) alone. We performed microarray-based gene expression profiling and found 3456 probe sets from 101A, 1432 probe sets from 101B, and 2717 probe sets from HGEC to be differentially expressed. Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (GSEA) revealed xenobiotic metabolism and steroid biosynthesis were the top two pathways that were upregulated by combustible but not by non-combustible TPPs. Notably, aldo-keto reductase genes, AKR1C1 and AKR1C2, were the core genes in the top enriched pathways and were statistically upregulated more than eight-fold by combustible TPPs. Quantitative real time polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) results statistically support AKR1C1 as a potential biomarker for differentiating the biological effects of combustible from non-combustible tobacco products. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Human Genomics and Genetic Diseases)
Show Figures

Figure 1

16 pages, 3122 KiB  
Article
Toxicity of Smokeless Tobacco Extract after 184-Day Repeated Oral Administration in Rats
by Chenlin Yu, Ziteng Zhang, Yangang Liu, Ying Zong, Yongchun Chen, Xiuming Du, Jikuai Chen, Shijie Feng, Jinlian Hu, Shufang Cui and Guocai Lu
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13(3), 281; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13030281 - 4 Mar 2016
Cited by 12 | Viewed by 6366
Abstract
The use of smokeless tobacco (ST) is growing rapidly and globally. The consumption of ST is associated with an increased risk for developing chronic diseases, such as diabetes, hypercholesterolemia, and myocardial infarction, and has led to many public health problems. It is very [...] Read more.
The use of smokeless tobacco (ST) is growing rapidly and globally. The consumption of ST is associated with an increased risk for developing chronic diseases, such as diabetes, hypercholesterolemia, and myocardial infarction, and has led to many public health problems. It is very important to access the toxicity of ST. This experiment presents data from 184-day toxicology studies in Sprague-Dawley (SD) rats designed to characterize the chronic effects of a smokeless tobacco extract (STE). The control group and treatment groups were matched for a range of nicotine levels. Animals were given STE by oral gavage with doses of 3.75 (low-dose), 7.50 (mid-dose) and 15.00 (high-dose) mg·nicotine/kg body weight/day for 184 days, followed by 30 days for recovery. Variables evaluated included body weights, feed consumption, clinical observations, clinical and anatomic pathology (including organ weights), and histopathology. Decreased body weights and organ weights (heart, liver and kidney) were found in animals in the mid-dose and high-dose groups. STE also showed moderate and reversible toxicity in esophagus, stomach, liver, kidney and lung. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

23 pages, 683 KiB  
Article
Comparative In Vitro Toxicity Profile of Electronic and Tobacco Cigarettes, Smokeless Tobacco and Nicotine Replacement Therapy Products: E-Liquids, Extracts and Collected Aerosols
by Manoj Misra, Robert D. Leverette, Bethany T. Cooper, Melanee B. Bennett and Steven E. Brown
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2014, 11(11), 11325-11347; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph111111325 - 30 Oct 2014
Cited by 130 | Viewed by 46603
Abstract
The use of electronic cigarettes (e-cigs) continues to increase worldwide in parallel with accumulating information on their potential toxicity and safety. In this study, an in vitro battery of established assays was used to examine the cytotoxicity, mutagenicity, genotoxicity and inflammatory responses of [...] Read more.
The use of electronic cigarettes (e-cigs) continues to increase worldwide in parallel with accumulating information on their potential toxicity and safety. In this study, an in vitro battery of established assays was used to examine the cytotoxicity, mutagenicity, genotoxicity and inflammatory responses of certain commercial e-cigs and compared to tobacco burning cigarettes, smokeless tobacco (SLT) products and a nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) product. The toxicity evaluation was performed on e-liquids and pad-collected aerosols of e-cigs, pad-collected smoke condensates of tobacco cigarettes and extracts of SLT and NRT products. In all assays, exposures with e-cig liquids and collected aerosols, at the doses tested, showed no significant activity when compared to tobacco burning cigarettes. Results for the e-cigs, with and without nicotine in two evaluated flavor variants, were very similar in all assays, indicating that the presence of nicotine and flavors, at the levels tested, did not induce any cytotoxic, genotoxic or inflammatory effects. The present findings indicate that neither the e-cig liquids and collected aerosols, nor the extracts of the SLT and NRT products produce any meaningful toxic effects in four widely-applied in vitro test systems, in which the conventional cigarette smoke preparations, at comparable exposures, are markedly cytotoxic and genotoxic. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Electronic Cigarettes as a Tool in Tobacco Harm Reduction)
Show Figures

Graphical abstract

Back to TopTop