Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 210

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

What Is Actually Stained by Rose Bengal?

Feenstra, Robert P. G.·1992·Archives of Ophthalmology

Abstract

It has been believed that 1% rose bengal does not stain normal, healthy cells but rather stains degenerated or dead cells and mucous strands. In contrast to this conventional knowledge, we discovered that both commercial additive-containing and additive-free rose bengal solutions stained four different types of healthy cultured cells, including rabbit corneal epithelial cells. Rose bengal staining was rapid, dose dependent, predominantly nuclear, and detectable with the naked eye at concentrations as low as 0.05% and 0.025% for the commercial additive-containing or additive-free solutions, respectively, and with the fluorescence microscope at a concentration of 0.001%. It is surprising to discover that rose bengal is not a vital dye; after staining, cells actually lost vitality, as evidenced by instant morphologic changes, subsequent loss of cellular motility, cell detachment, and cell death. Such an intrinsic toxic effect was augmented by light exposure. The rose bengal staining of live as well as detergent-treated (Triton X-100) cells could be blocked by such tear components as mucin and albumin, suggesting that normally negative rose bengal staining is due to the protective function of the preocular tear film, ie, staining is not dictated by lack of cell vitality. These data indicate that rose bengal staining ensues whenever there is poor protection of surface epithelium by the preocular tear film; this represents a new interpretation for rose bengal stains seen in various ocular surface disorders.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archopht.1992.01080190090035

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 210

Metadata

Authors
Feenstra, R. P. G.
Venue
Archives of Ophthalmology
Published
1992-07-01
Volume
110
Issue
7
Pages
984
ISSN
0003-9950 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2094354231
Cited by
210
References
1
FWCI
5.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: What Is Actually Stained by Rose Bengal? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archopht.1992.01080190090035
The paper
Feenstra, R. P. G. (1992). What Is Actually Stained by Rose Bengal? Archives of Ophthalmology. https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.1992.01080190090035

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.