Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 340

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Clostridium difficile toxin B is more potent than toxin A in damaging human colonic epithelium in vitro.

Open access
Riegler, M, Sedivy, R, Pothoulakis, C, Hamilton, G, Zacherl, J, Bischof, G, Cosentini, E, Feil, W, Schiessel, R, LaMont, J T·1995·Journal of Clinical Investigation

Abstract

Toxin A but not toxin B, appears to mediate intestinal damage in animal models of Clostridium difficile enteritis. The purpose of this study was to investigate the electrophysiologic and morphologic effects of purified C. difficile toxins A and B on human colonic mucosa in Ussing chambers. Luminal exposure of tissues to 16-65 nM of toxin A and 0.2-29 nM of toxin B for 5 h caused dose-dependent epithelial damage. Potential difference, short-circuit current and resistance decreased by 76, 58, and 46%, respectively, with 32 nM of toxin A and by 76, 55, and 47%, respectively, with 3 nM of toxin B, when compared with baseline (P < 0.05). 3 nM of toxin A did not cause electrophysiologic changes. Permeability to [3H]mannitol increased 16-fold after exposure to 32 nM of toxin A and to 3 nM of toxin B when compared with controls (P < 0.05). Light and scanning electron microscopy after exposure to either toxin revealed patchy damage and exfoliation of superficial epithelial cells, while crypt epithelium remained intact. Fluorescent microscopy of phalloidin-stained sections showed that both toxins caused disruption and condensation of cellular F-actin. Our results demonstrate that the human colon is approximately 10 times more sensitive to the damaging effects of toxin B than toxin A, suggesting that toxin B may be more important than toxin A in the pathogenesis of C. difficile colitis in man.

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 · 10.1172/jci117885

Cites

32 of 32 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 32 references

Cited by

See all 340

Metadata

Authors
Riegler, M., Sedivy, R., Pothoulakis, C., Hamilton, G., Zacherl, J., Bischof, G., Cosentini, E., Feil, W., Schiessel, R., & LaMont, J. T.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Investigation
Published
1995-05-01
Volume
95
Issue
5
Pages
2004-2011
ISSN
0021-9738 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2003370562
Cited by
340
References
32
FWCI
15.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Clostridium difficile toxin B is more potent than toxin A in damaging human colonic epithelium in vitro. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1172/jci117885
The paper
Riegler, M., Sedivy, R., Pothoulakis, C., Hamilton, G., Zacherl, J., Bischof, G., Cosentini, E., Feil, W., Schiessel, R., & LaMont, J. T. (1995). Clostridium difficile toxin B is more potent than toxin A in damaging human colonic epithelium in vitro. Journal of Clinical Investigation. https://doi.org/10.1172/jci117885

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.