ReviewMutagenesis2016
Estimating the carcinogenic potency of chemicals from the in vivo micronucleus test.
Review in Mutagenesis, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 59 citations in OpenAlex.
- Deep learning and object detection methods for scoring cell types within the human buccal cell micronucleus and cytome assays for human biomonitoring.Mutagenesis · 2026Review
- Critical comparison of BMD and TDArchives of toxicology · 2025Article
- A Double Fluorescent Staining Method Increases the Sensitivity of the Cytokinesis-Block Micronucleus Assay.Methods and protocols · 2025Article
- The use of canonical dose-response models for benchmark dose analysis of continuous toxicological data.Critical reviews in toxicology · 2025Review
- Genotoxicity assessment: opportunities, challenges and perspectives for quantitative evaluations of dose-response data.Archives of toxicology · 2023Review
- Establishing a quantitative framework for regulatory interpretation of genetic toxicity dose-response data: Margin of exposure case study of 48 compounds with both in vivo mutagenicity and carcinogenicity dose-response data.Environmental and molecular mutagenesis · 2023Article
- Challenges in Predicting the Change in the Cumulative Exposure of New Tobacco and Related Products Based on Emissions and Toxicity Dose-Response Data.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Comprehensive interpretation of in vitro micronucleus test results for 292 chemicals: from hazard identification to risk assessment application.Archives of toxicology · 2022Article
- Article
- Genotoxicity evaluation using primary hepatocytes isolated from rhesus macaque (Macaca mulatta).Toxicology · 2021Article
- Article
- Comparison of methods used for evaluation of mutagenicity/genotoxicity of model chemicals - parabens.Physiological research · 2020Review
- Genotoxicity in American kestrels in an agricultural landscape in the Baja California peninsula, Mexico.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2020Article
- A Method for Comparing the Impact on Carcinogenicity of Tobacco Products: A Case Study on Heated Tobacco Versus Cigarettes.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2020Article
- Article
- Predictions of genotoxic potential, mode of action, molecular targets, and potency via a tiered multiflow® assay data analysis strategy.Environmental and molecular mutagenesis · 2019Article
- Benchmark dose analyses of multiple genetic toxicity endpoints permit robust, cross-tissue comparisons of MutaMouse responses to orally delivered benzo[a]pyrene.Archives of toxicology · 2018Article
- Comparing BMD-derived genotoxic potency estimations across variants of the transgenic rodent gene mutation assay.Environmental and molecular mutagenesis · 2017Article
- Evaluation of the automated MicroFlowArchives of toxicology · 2017Article
- Update: use of the benchmark dose approach in risk assessment.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this study, we investigated the applicability of using in vivo mouse micronucleus (MN) data to derive cancer potency information. We also present a new statistical methodology for correlating estimated potencies between in vivo MN tests and cancer studies, which could similarly be used for other systems (e.g. in vitro vs. in vivo genotoxicity tests). The dose-response modelling program PROAST was used to calculate benchmark doses (BMDs) for estimating the genotoxic and carcinogenic potency for 48 compounds in mice; most of the data were retrieved from the National Toxicology Program (NTP) database, while some additional data were retrieved from the Carcinogenic Potency Database and published studies. BMD05s (doses with 5% increase in MN frequency) were derived from MN data, and BMD10s (doses with 10% extra cancer risk) were derived from carcinogenicity data, along with their respective lower (BMDL) and upper (BMDU) confidence bounds. A clear correlation between the in vivo MN BMD05s and the cancer BMD10s was observed when the lowest BMD05 from the in vivo MN was plotted against the lowest BMD10 from the carcinogenicity data for each individual compound. By making a further selection of BMDs related to more or less equally severe cancer lesions, the correlation was considerably improved. Getting a general scientific consensus on how we can quantitatively compare different tumour lesion types and investigating the impact of MN study duration are needed to refine this correlation analysis. Nevertheless, our results suggest that a BMD derived from genotoxicity data might provide a prediction of the tumour potency (BMD10) with an uncertainty range spanning roughly a factor of 100.
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.