ReviewBritish journal of pharmacology2011
How accurate is in vitro prediction of carcinogenicity?
Review in British journal of pharmacology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- AMPred-MFG: Investigating the Mutagenicity of Compounds Using Motif-Based Graph Combined with Molecular Fingerprints and Graph Attention Mechanism.Interdisciplinary sciences, computational life sciences · 2026Article
- Non-clinical safety assessment ofToxicological research · 2024Article
- Development and characterization of a recombinant silk network for 3D culture of immortalized and fresh tumor-derived breast cancer cells.Bioengineering & translational medicine · 2023Article
- A graph neural network approach for molecule carcinogenicity prediction.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2022Article
- Towards an advanced testing strategy for genotoxicity using image-based 2D and 3D HepG2 DNA damage response fluorescent protein reporters.Mutagenesis · 2022Article
- Commentary: Novel strategies and new tools to curtail the health effects of pesticides.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2021Article
- Genotoxicity of Water Extract from Bark-RemovedMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Anti-angiogenic and anti-proliferative effects of Benja-ummarit extract in rats with hepatocellular carcinoma.Biomedical reports · 2020Article
- Development of a Microfluidic Array to Study Drug Response in Breast Cancer.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
- Druggability of Coronary Artery Disease Risk Loci.Circulation. Genomic and precision medicine · 2018Article
- Genotoxicity Assessment of Drinking Water Disinfection Byproducts by DNA Damage and Repair Pathway Profiling Analysis.Environmental science & technology · 2018Article
- Mammary fibroblasts reduce apoptosis and speed estrogen-induced hyperplasia in an organotypic MCF7-derived duct model.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- Remote control of glucose homeostasis in vivo using photopharmacology.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- A Quantitative Toxicogenomics Assay for High-throughput and Mechanistic Genotoxicity Assessment and Screening of Environmental Pollutants.Environmental science & technology · 2016Article
- High-throughput screening platform for engineered nanoparticle-mediated genotoxicity using CometChip technology.ACS nano · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Positive genetic toxicity data suggest carcinogenic hazard, and this can stop a candidate pharmaceutical reaching the clinic. However, during the last decade, it has become clear that many non-carcinogens produce misleading positive results in one or other of the regulatory genotoxicity assays. These doubtful conclusions cost a lot of time and money, as they trigger additional testing of apparently genotoxic candidates, both in vitro and in animals, to discover whether the suggested hazard is genuine. This in turn means that clinical trials can be put on hold. This review describes the current approaches to the 'misleading positive' problem as well as efforts to reduce the use of animals in genotoxicity assessment. The following issues are then addressed: the application of genotoxicity testing screens earlier in development; the search for new or improved in vitro genotoxicity tests; proposed changes to the International Committee on Harmonisation guidance on genotoxicity testing [S2(R1)]. Together, developments in all these areas offer good prospects of a more rapid and cost-effective way to understand genetic toxicity concerns.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.