Mechanisms of benzalkonium chloride toxicity in a human trabecular meshwork cell line and the protective role of preservative‐free tafluprost
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Benzalkonium chloride (BAK) is a controversial ophthalmic preservative because of its prominent side-effect profile. In this study, we examined the mechanism of BAK toxicity in human trabecular meshwork cells (HTMC) and compared the effects of BAK with tafluprost free acid, which is an active form of tafluprost commercially available in a preservative-free formulation. METHODS: Primary HTMC were treated with different BAK concentrations over various exposure times. Cell viability was quantified using the 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenol tetrazolium bromide assay, and apoptosis was measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. The cell viability of primary HTMC exposed to various concentrations and times of tafluprost free acid was also determined. Cells were treated with BAK and tafluprost free acid for 30 min at 37°C, and cell viability was again assessed. The effect of BAK on the gap junction protein Connexin-43 (Cx43) expression was subsequently examined. RESULTS: BAK treatment resulted in a dose- and time-dependent decline in cell viability. Apoptosis increased following BAK treatment. Tafluprost-free acid treatment did not significantly affect cell viability. Tafluprost co-treatment with BAK resulted in an increase in cell viability as compared with BAK treatment alone. BAK treatment upregulated Cx43 expression in HTMC. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate that BAK is harmful to the health of cultured HTMC. Tafluprost is both safe and cytoprotective against BAK for these HTMC. The effect of tafluprost on the gap junctions of the HTM should be further investigated.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".