Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32152633›Full record

ArticleMutagenesis2021

Validation of the 3D reconstructed human skin Comet assay, an animal-free alternative for following-up positive results from standard in vitro genotoxicity assays.

Stefan Pfuhler, Ralph Pirow, Thomas R Downs, Andrea Haase, Nicola Hewitt, Andreas Luch, Marion Merkel, Claudia Petrick, André Said, Monika Schäfer-Korting and 1 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Mutagenesis, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Development of a TK6-derived cell line expressing four human cytochrome P450s for genotoxicity testing.Toxicology in vitro : an international journal published in association with BIBRA · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

11 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Stefan PfuhlerProcter & Gamble, Mason, OH.
Ralph PirowGerman Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Department of Chemical and Product Safety, Berlin, Germany.
Thomas R DownsProcter & Gamble, Mason, OH.
Andrea HaaseGerman Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Department of Chemical and Product Safety, Berlin, Germany.
Nicola HewittCosmetics Europe, Brussels, Belgium.
Andreas LuchGerman Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Department of Chemical and Product Safety, Berlin, Germany.
Marion MerkelHenkel AG &Co KGaA, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Claudia PetrickHenkel AG &Co KGaA, Düsseldorf, Germany.
André SaidGerman Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Department of Chemical and Product Safety, Berlin, Germany.
Monika Schäfer-KortingFreie Universität Berlin, Institute for Pharmacy (Pharmacology and Toxicology), Berlin, Germany.
Kerstin ReisingerHenkel AG &Co KGaA, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Federal Institute for Risk Assessment · DEHenkel (Germany) · DEFreie Universität Berlin · DEProcter & Gamble (United States) · USCosmetics Europe · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As part of the safety assessment process, all industrial sectors employ genotoxicity test batteries, starting with well-established in vitro assays. However, these batteries have limited predictive capacity for the in vivo situation, which may result in unnecessary follow-up in vivo testing or the loss of promising substances where animal tests are prohibited or not desired. To address this, a project involving regulators, academia and industry was established to develop and validate in vitro human skin-based genotoxicity assays for topically exposed substances, such as cosmetics ingredients. Here, we describe the validation of the 3D reconstructed skin (RS) Comet assay. In this multicenter study, chemicals were applied topically three times to the skin over 48 h. Isolated keratinocytes and fibroblasts were transferred to slides before electrophoresis and the resulting comet formation was recorded as % tail DNA. Before decoding, results of the validation exercise for 32 substances were evaluated by an independent statistician. There was a high predictive capacity of this assay when compared to in vivo outcomes, with a sensitivity of 77 (80)%, a specificity of 88 (97)% and an overall accuracy of 83 (92)%. The numbers reflect the calls of the performing laboratories in the coded phase, whereas those in parenthesis reflect calls according to the agreed evaluation criteria. Intra- and inter-laboratory reproducibility was also very good, with a concordance of 93 and 88%, respectively. These results generated with the Phenion® Full-Thickness skin model demonstrate its suitability for this assay, with reproducibly low background DNA damage and sufficient metabolic capacity to activate pro-mutagens. The validation outcome supports the use of the RS Comet assay to follow up positive results from standard in vitro genotoxicity assays when the expected route of exposure is dermal. Based on the available data, the assay was accepted recently into the OECD test guideline development program.

Indexed as

DNA DamageAnimal Testing AlternativesBiological AssayFalse Positive ReactionsHumansIn Vitro TechniquesLaboratoriesMicronucleus TestsMutagensSkinMutagens

Identifiers

PMID32152633
PMCPMC8081376
OpenAlexW3012415380

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.