Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31294869›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental and molecular mutagenesis2019

3Rs friendly study designs facilitate rat liver and blood micronucleus assays and Pig-a gene mutation assessments: Proof-of-concept with 13 reference chemicals.

Stephen D Dertinger, Svetlana L Avlasevich, Dorothea K Torous, Priyanka Singh, Sumee Khanal, Christopher Kirby, Amanda Drake, James T MacGregor, Jeffrey C Bemis

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental and molecular mutagenesis, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Mutation accumulation following extended exposure of human HepaRG cells to a genotoxic carcinogen.Journal of environmental science and health. Part C, Toxicology and carcinogenesis · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. The MAK collection for occupational health and safety · 2024
    Review
  6. Risk assessment ofEFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. 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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Stephen D DertingerLitron Laboratories, Rochester, New York.
Svetlana L AvlasevichLitron Laboratories, Rochester, New York.
Dorothea K TorousLitron Laboratories, Rochester, New York.
Priyanka SinghLitron Laboratories, Rochester, New York.
Sumee KhanalLitron Laboratories, Rochester, New York.
Christopher KirbyLitron Laboratories, Rochester, New York.
Amanda DrakeLitron Laboratories, Rochester, New York.
James T MacGregorToxicology Consulting Services, Bonita Springs, Florida.
Jeffrey C BemisLitron Laboratories, Rochester, New York.
Litron Laboratories (United States) · USBiological Consulting Services (United States) · US

Funding

Validation of Cross-Species Biomarkers of DNA DamageR44ES028163 · NIEHS · LITRON LABORATORIES, LTD. · PI BEMIS, JEFFREY C, DERTINGER, STEPHEN D · 2018 to 2019
$1.4M
Automation of a Liver Genotoxicity AssayR44ES026464 · NIEHS · LITRON LABORATORIES, LTD. · PI BEMIS, JEFFREY C, DERTINGER, STEPHEN D · 2016 to 2018
$1.1M
National Institute of Health/National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences R44ES026464National Institute of Health/National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences R44ES028163NIEHS NIH HHS R44 ES026464NIEHS NIH HHS R44 ES028163
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Regulatory guidance documents stress the value of assessing the most appropriate endpoints in multiple tissues when evaluating the in vivo genotoxic potential of chemicals. However, conducting several independent studies to evaluate multiple endpoints and/or tissue compartments is resource intensive. Furthermore, when dependent on visual detection, conventional approaches for scoring genotoxicity endpoints can be slow, tedious, and less objective than the ideal. To address these issues with current practices we attempted to (1) devise resource sparing treatment and harvest schedules that are compatible with liver and blood micronucleus endpoints, as well as the Pig-a gene mutation assay, and (2) utilize flow cytometry-based methods to score each of these genotoxicity biomarkers. Proof-of-principle experiments were performed with 4-week-old male and female Crl:CD(SD) rats exposed to aristolochic acids I/II, benzo[a]pyrene, cisplatin, cyclophosphamide, diethylnitrosamine, 1,2-dimethylhydrazine, dimethylnitrosamine, 2,6-dinitrotoluene, hydroxyurea, melphalan, temozolomide, quinoline, or vinblastine. These 13 chemicals were each tested in two treatment regimens: one 3-day exposure cycle, and three 3-day exposure cycles. Each exposure, blood collection, and liver harvest was accomplished during a standard Monday-Friday workweek. Key findings are that even these well-studied, relatively potent genotoxicants were not active in both tissues and all assays (indeed only cisplatin was clearly positive in all three assays); and whereas the sensitivity of the Pig-a assay clearly benefitted from three versus one treatment cycle, micronucleus assays yielded qualitatively similar results across both study designs. Collectively, these results suggest it is possible to significantly reduce animal and other resource requirements while improving assessments of in vivo genotoxicity potential by simultaneously evaluating three endpoints and two important tissue compartments using fit-for-purpose study designs in conjunction with flow cytometric scoring approaches. Environ. Mol. Mutagen., 60:704-739, 2019. © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Indexed as

AnimalsDNA DamageFemaleLiverMaleMembrane ProteinsMicronuclei, Chromosome-DefectiveMicronucleus TestsMutagensRatsResearch DesignMembrane ProteinsMutagensphosphatidylinositol glycan-class A proteinchromosomal damageflow cytometrygenotoxicityin vivomutation

Identifiers

PMID31294869
PMCPMC8600442
OpenAlexW2960541789

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.