Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 172

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Toxicity of preserved and unpreserved antiglaucoma topical drugs in an in vitro model of conjunctival cells

De Saint Jean, M., Debbasch, C., Brignole, F., Rat, P., Warnet, J.-M., Baudouin, C.·2000·Current Eye Research

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the toxicity of a short-time application of timolol with benzalkonium chloride (timolol-BAC+) and unpreserved timolol (timolol-BAC-) in a human conjunctival cell line. METHODS: Chang's conjunctival cell line (ATCC CCL 20.2) was treated for 15min. with 0.1%, 0.25% or 0.4% timolol-BAC(+) or BAC(-) and then examined immediately or 24h later. Cell viability, chromatin condensation and free radicals production were studied by microplate cold light cytometry. Moreover, relative cell number was evaluated by crystal violet colorimetric test. The comparison was done with an oxidative stress model of cells treated with 0.001-0.000001% hydrogen peroxide (H(2)O(2)). In addition, cell size and the expression of an apoptotic marker Apo2.7 were evaluated by flow cytometry. RESULTS: Timolol-BAC(+) induced a rapid decrease in cell viability ranging from 40% immediately after treatment to 85% 24h later. A small initial decrease in cell viability was also observed with all tested concentrations of timolol-BAC(-) but, 24h later, cell viability either tended to remain constant or cells completely recovered. Cell viability fell down after 24h exposure to 0.001% H(2)O( 2) whereas it was not modified at lower concentrations. 24h after treatment with 0.25% timolol-BAC(+), the relative cell number was reduced by 55% whereas it did not vary after 0.25% timolol-BAC(-) treatment. Only timolol-BAC(+) induced chromatin condensation and cell size reduction. Moreover, cells treated with timolol-BAC(+) overexpressed the apoptotic marker Apo2.7. Both timolol-BAC(+) and BAC(-) induced reactive oxygen species (ROS) production which was significantly more important when 0.25% or 0.4% timolol-BAC(+) were applied. Only 0.001% and 0.0001% H(2)O(2) generated a significant free radicals production. CONCLUSION: In our model of conjunctival cells in vitro timolol-BAC(+) induced irreversible cytotoxic damage with some characteristics of apoptosis. The active compound of timolol-BAC(-) could be responsible for reactive oxygen species production and for cell viability variations. The role of oxidative stress in timolol-BAC(+)-induced toxicity seems not to be predominant. in vitro toxic effects of antiglaucoma drugs could, in part, explain some ocular surface disorders in long-term treated patients.

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 · 10.1076/0271-3683(200002)2021-dft085

Cites

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

Cited by

See all 172

Metadata

Authors
De Saint Jean, M., Debbasch, C., Brignole, F., Rat, P., Warnet, J.-M., & Baudouin, C.
Venue
Current Eye Research
Published
2000-01
Volume
20
Issue
2
Pages
85-94
ISSN
  • 0271-3683 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2202
OpenAlex
W2000179906
Cited by
172
References
0
FWCI
5.76
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: Toxicity of preserved and unpreserved antiglaucoma topical drugs in an in vitro model of conjunctival cells. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1076/0271-3683(200002)2021-dft085
The paper
De Saint Jean, M., Debbasch, C., Brignole, F., Rat, P., Warnet, J.-M., & Baudouin, C. (2000). Toxicity of preserved and unpreserved antiglaucoma topical drugs in an in vitro model of conjunctival cells. Current Eye Research. https://doi.org/10.1076/0271-3683(200002)2021-dft085

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.