Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28510487›Full record

ReviewCritical reviews in toxicology2017

Origin of the TTC values for compounds that are genotoxic and/or carcinogenic and an approach for their re-evaluation.

Alan Boobis, Paul Brown, Mark Timothy David Cronin, James Edwards, Corrado Lodovico Galli, Jay Goodman, Abigail Jacobs, David Kirkland, Mirjam Luijten, Cyril Marsaux and 3 more

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Critical reviews in toxicology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Guidelines for the assessment and control of mutagenic impurities in pharmaceuticals.Genes and environment : the official journal of the Japanese Environmental Mutagen Society · 2025
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Evaluation of the Suitability of MammalianFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Alan Boobisa Department of Medicine , Imperial College London , London , UK.
Paul Brownb US Food and Drug Administration , Silver Spring , MD , USA.
Mark Timothy David Croninc School of Pharmacy and Biomolecular Sciences , Liverpool John Moores University , Liverpool , UK.
James Edwardsd DSM Nutritional Products Ltd , Kaiseraugst , Switzerland.
Corrado Lodovico Gallie Department of Pharmacological and Biomolecular Sciences , University of Milan , Milan , Italy.
Jay Goodmanf Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology , Michigan State University , East Lansing , MI , USA.
Abigail Jacobsb US Food and Drug Administration , Silver Spring , MD , USA.
David Kirklandg Kirkland Consulting , Tadcaster , UK.
Mirjam Luijtenh Centre for Health Protection , National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) , Bilthoven , The Netherlands.
Cyril Marsauxi ILSI Europe a.i.s.b.l. , Brussels , Belgium.
Matthew Martinj Environmental Protection Agency , Washington , DC , USA.
Chihae Yangk Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering , The Ohio State University , Columbus , OH , USA.
Heli Miriam Hollnageln Dow Europe GmbH , Horgen , Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) approach is a resource-effective de minimis method for the safety assessment of chemicals, based on distributional analysis of the results of a large number of toxicological studies. It is being increasingly used to screen and prioritize substances with low exposure for which there is little or no toxicological information. The first step in the approach is the identification of substances that may be DNA-reactive mutagens, to which the lowest TTC value is applied. This TTC value was based on the analysis of the cancer potency database and involved a number of assumptions that no longer reflect the state-of-the-science and some of which were not as transparent as they could have been. Hence, review and updating of the database is proposed, using inclusion and exclusion criteria reflecting current knowledge. A strategy for the selection of appropriate substances for TTC determination, based on consideration of weight of evidence for genotoxicity and carcinogenicity is outlined. Identification of substances that are carcinogenic by a DNA-reactive mutagenic mode of action and those that clearly act by a non-genotoxic mode of action will enable the protectiveness to be determined of both the TTC for DNA-reactive mutagenicity and that applied by default to substances that may be carcinogenic but are unlikely to be DNA-reactive mutagens (i.e. for Cramer class I-III compounds). Critical to the application of the TTC approach to substances that are likely to be DNA-reactive mutagens is the reliability of the software tools used to identify such compounds. Current methods for this task are reviewed and recommendations made for their application.

Indexed as

CarcinogensDatabases, ChemicalHumansMutagensRisk AssessmentSoftwareCarcinogensMutagensCancer Potency Database (CPDB)carcinogenicityCramer classificationDNA-reactivitygenotoxicitymutagenicitystructural alertsthreshold of regulation (TOR)Threshold of toxicological concern (TTC)

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.