Fipronil induces lung inflammation in vivo and cell death in vitro
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fipronil is an insecticide that acts at the gamma-aminobutyric acid receptor and glutamate-gated chloride channels in the central nervous systems of target organisms. The use of fipronil is increasing across the globe. Presently, very little data exist on the potential impact of exposure to fipronil on the lungs. METHODS: We studied effects of intranasal (N = 8) and oral (N = 8) treatment with fipronil (10 mg/kg) on lungs of mice. Control mice were given groundnut oil orally (N = 7) or ethanol intranasally (N = 7) as these were the vehicles for respective treatments. RESULTS: Hematoxylin-eosin stained lung sections showed normal histology in the control lungs compared to the thickened alveolar septa, disruption of the airways epithelium and damage to vascular endothelium in the intranasal and the oral groups. Mice exposed to fipronil either orally or intranasally showed increased von Willebrand factor staining in the endothelium and septal capillaries. Compared to the control mice, TLR4 expression in airway epithelium was increased in mice treated intranasally but not orally with fipronil. Oral fipronil reduced TLR9 staining in the airway epithelium but intranasal exposure caused intense staining in the alveolar septa and airway epithelium. There were higher numbers of TLR4 positive cells in alveolar septa in lungs of mice treated intranasally (P = 0.010) compared to the respective control and orally treated mice but no significant differences between treatments for TLR9 positive stained cells (P = 0.226). The U937 macrophage cells exposed to fipronil at concentrations of 0.29 μm to 5.72 μm/ml over 3- or 24-hour showed significant increase in cell death at higher concentrations of fipronil (P < 0.0001). Western blots revealed no effect of fipronil on TLR4 (P = 0.49) or TLR9 (P = 0.94) expression on macrophage cell line. CONCLUSION: While both oral or intranasal fipronil treatments induced signs of lung inflammation, the number TLR4-positive septal cells was increased only following intranasal treatment. Fipronil causes macrophage cell death without altering TLR4 and TLR9 expression in vitro.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".