Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24801602›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental and molecular mutagenesis2014

Derivation of point of departure (PoD) estimates in genetic toxicology studies and their potential applications in risk assessment.

G E Johnson, L G Soeteman-Hernández, B B Gollapudi, O G Bodger, K L Dearfield, R H Heflich, J G Hixon, D P Lovell, J T MacGregor, L H Pottenger and 7 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental and molecular mutagenesis, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing papers in PubMed
6.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

54 citing papers in PubMed, 146 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. From TDArchives of toxicology · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Benchmark Response (BMR) Values for In Vivo Mutagenicity Endpoints.Environmental and molecular mutagenesis · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Investigating the dependency of in vitro benchmark concentrations on exposure time in transcriptomics experiments.Toxicology in vitro : an international journal published in association with BIBRA · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Investigation of the effects of phthalates onFrontiers in endocrinology · 2023
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors at 11 institutions in 5 countries.

G E JohnsonInstitute of Life Science, College of Medicine, Swansea University, Swansea, Wales, United Kingdom.
L G Soeteman-Hernández
B B Gollapudi
O G Bodger
K L Dearfield
R H Heflich
J G Hixon
D P Lovell
J T MacGregor
L H Pottenger
C M Thompson
L Abraham
V Thybaud
J Y Tanir
E Zeiger
J van Benthem
P A White
BioStrategies (United States) · USNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment · NLSwansea University · GBDow Chemical (United States) · USExponent (United States) · USHealth and Environmental Sciences Institute · USHealth Canada · CAOffice of the Assistant Secretary for Health · USSanofi (France) · FRSt George's, University of London · GBUnited States Food and Drug Administration · US

Funding

National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research NC/K500033/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genetic toxicology data have traditionally been employed for qualitative, rather than quantitative evaluations of hazard. As a continuation of our earlier report that analyzed ethyl methanesulfonate (EMS) and methyl methanesulfonate (MMS) dose-response data (Gollapudi et al., 2013), here we present analyses of 1-ethyl-1-nitrosourea (ENU) and 1-methyl-1-nitrosourea (MNU) dose-response data and additional approaches for the determination of genetic toxicity point-of-departure (PoD) metrics. We previously described methods to determine the no-observed-genotoxic-effect-level (NOGEL), the breakpoint-dose (BPD; previously named Td), and the benchmark dose (BMD10 ) for genetic toxicity endpoints. In this study we employed those methods, along with a new approach, to determine the non-linear slope-transition-dose (STD), and alternative methods to determine the BPD and BMD, for the analyses of nine ENU and 22 MNU datasets across a range of in vitro and in vivo endpoints. The NOGEL, BMDL10 and BMDL1SD PoD metrics could be readily calculated for most gene mutation and chromosomal damage studies; however, BPDs and STDs could not always be derived due to data limitations and constraints of the underlying statistical methods. The BMDL10 values were often lower than the other PoDs, and the distribution of BMDL10 values produced the lowest median PoD. Our observations indicate that, among the methods investigated in this study, the BMD approach is the preferred PoD for quantitatively describing genetic toxicology data. Once genetic toxicology PoDs are calculated via this approach, they can be used to derive reference doses and margin of exposure values that may be useful for evaluating human risk and regulatory decision making.

Indexed as

AnimalsBenchmarkingDatabases, FactualDose-Response Relationship, DrugEcotoxicologyEthyl MethanesulfonateEthylnitrosoureaHumansMethyl MethanesulfonateMethylnitrosoureaMutagensNo-Observed-Adverse-Effect LevelRisk AssessmentEthyl MethanesulfonateEthylnitrosoureaMethyl MethanesulfonateMethylnitrosoureaMutagensalkylating agentsbenchmark doseENUmargin of exposureMNU

Identifiers

PMID24801602
PMCPMC6710644
OpenAlexW2129167503

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.