ArticleEXCLI journal2014
Testing chemical carcinogenicity by using a transcriptomics HepaRG-based model?
Article in EXCLI journal, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Consensus findings of an International Workshops on Genotoxicity Testing workshop on using transcriptomic biomarkers to predict genotoxicity.Environmental and molecular mutagenesis · 2025Review
- Review of Transcriptomic Biomarkers That Predict In Vitro Genotoxicity in Human Cell Lines.Environmental and molecular mutagenesis · 2025Review
- Evaluation of functional candidate biomarkers of non-genotoxic hepatocarcinogenicity in human liver spheroid co-cultures.Archives of toxicology · 2023Article
- Comparative Analysis of Transcriptional Responses to Genotoxic and Non-Genotoxic Agents in the Blood Cell Model TK6 and the Liver Model HepaRG.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Article
- Connexin-Based Channel Activity Is Not Specifically Altered by Hepatocarcinogenic Chemicals.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Article
- Flow cytometric micronucleus assay and TGx-DDI transcriptomic biomarker analysis of ten genotoxic and non-genotoxic chemicals in human HepaRG™ cells.Genes and environment : the official journal of the Japanese Environmental Mutagen Society · 2020Article
- Article
- Moving forward in carcinogenicity assessment: Report of an EURL ECVAM/ESTIV workshop.Toxicology in vitro : an international journal published in association with BIBRA · 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
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The EU FP6 project carcinoGENOMICS explored the combination of toxicogenomics and in vitro cell culture models for identifying organotypical genotoxic- and non-genotoxic carcinogen-specific gene signatures. Here the performance of its gene classifier, derived from exposure of metabolically competent human HepaRG cells to prototypical non-carcinogens (10 compounds) and hepatocarcinogens (20 compounds), is reported. Analysis of the data at the gene and the pathway level by using independent biostatistical approaches showed a distinct separation of genotoxic from non-genotoxic hepatocarcinogens and non-carcinogens (up to 88 % correct prediction). The most characteristic pathway responding to genotoxic exposure was DNA damage. Interlaboratory reproducibility was assessed by blindly testing of three compounds, from the set of 30 compounds, by three independent laboratories. Subsequent classification of these compounds resulted in correct prediction of the genotoxicants. As expected, results on the non-genotoxic carcinogens and the non-carcinogens were less predictive. In conclusion, the combination of transcriptomics with the HepaRG in vitro cell model provides a potential weight of evidence approach for the evaluation of the genotoxic potential of chemical substances.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26417288PMC4464292What 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.