Genotoxicity of cisplatin and carboplatin in cultured human lymphocytes: a comparative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Cisplatin and carboplatin are integral parts of many antineoplastic management regimens. Both platinum analogues are potent DNA alkylating agents that robustly induce genomic instability and promote apoptosis in tumor cells. Although the mechanism of action of both drugs is similar, cisplatin appears to be more cytotoxic. In this study, the genotoxic potential of cisplatin and carboplatin was compared using chromosomal aberrations (CAs) and sister-chromatid exchange (SCE) assays in cultured human lymphocytes. Results showed that cisplatin and carboplatin induced a significant increase in CAs and SCEs compared to the control group ( p <0.01). Levels of induced CAs were similar in both drugs; however, the magnitude of SCEs induced by cisplatin was significantly higher than that induced by carboplatin ( p <0.01). With respect to the mitotic and proliferative indices, both cisplatin and carboplatin significantly decreased mitotic index ( p <0.01) without affecting the proliferative index ( p >0.05). In conclusion, cisplatin was found to be more genotoxic than carboplatin in the SCE assay in cultured human lymphocytes, and that might explain the higher cytotoxicity of cisplatin.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".