ReviewMutation research. Genetic toxicology and environmental mutagenesis
EURL ECVAM Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity Database of Substances Eliciting Negative Results in the Ames Test: Construction of the Database.
Review in Mutation research. Genetic toxicology and environmental mutagenesis. 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 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Guiding Risk Reduction for Breast Cancer-Relevant Chemicals (BC-Chems): Chemical Production Volumes, Sources, Intake Levels, Emissions, and Regulations.Environmental health perspectives · 2026Article
- Variability and uncertainty of data from genotoxicity test guidelines: what we know and why it matters.Archives of toxicology · 2026Review
- Article
- Evaluation of the standard battery of in vitro genotoxicity tests to predict in vivo genotoxicity through mathematical modeling: A report from the 8th International Workshop on Genotoxicity Testing.Environmental and molecular mutagenesis · 2025Article
- Comparative Chemical Space Analysis of Pesticides and Substances with Genotoxicity Data.Chemical research in toxicology · 2025Article
- Machine Learning for Toxicity Prediction Using Chemical Structures: Pillars for Success in the Real World.Chemical research in toxicology · 2025Review
- Investigating the dependency of in vitro benchmark concentrations on exposure time in transcriptomics experiments.Toxicology in vitro : an international journal published in association with BIBRA · 2024Article
- An insight into carcinogenic activity and molecular mechanisms of Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate.Frontiers in toxicology · 2024Article
- Unraveling the mechanisms underlying drug-induced cholestatic liver injury: identifying key genes using machine learning techniques on human in vitro data sets.Archives of toxicology · 2023Article
- The Cell Transformation Assay: A Historical Assessment of Current Knowledge of Applications in an Integrated Approach to Testing and Assessment for Non-Genotoxic Carcinogens.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Sensing chemical-induced genotoxicity and oxidative stress via yeast-based reporter assays using NanoLuc luciferase.PloS one · 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
- Applicability of Scrape Loading-Dye Transfer Assay for Non-Genotoxic Carcinogen Testing.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- Toxicological Assessment of Bromochlorophene: Single and Repeated-Dose 28-Day Oral Toxicity, Genotoxicity, and Dermal Application in Sprague-Dawley Rats.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The bacterial reverse mutation test (Ames test) is the most commonly used genotoxicity test; it is a primary component of the chemical safety assessment data required by regulatory agencies worldwide. Within the current accepted in vitro genotoxicity test battery, it is considered capable of revealing DNA reactivity, and identifying substances that can produce gene mutations via different mechanisms. The previously published consolidated EURL ECVAM Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity Database, which includes substances that elicited a positive response in the Ames test, constitutes a collection of data that serves as a reference for a number of regulatory activities in the area of genotoxicity testing. Consequently, we considered it important to expand the database to include substances that fail to elicit a positive response in the Ames test, i.e., Ames negative substances. Here, we describe a curated collection of 211 Ames negative substances, with a summary of complementary data available for other genotoxicity endpoints in vitro and in vivo, plus available carcinogenicity data. A descriptive analysis of the data is presented. This includes a representation of the chemical space formed by the Ames-negative database with respect to other substances (e.g. REACH registered substances, approved drugs, pesticides, etc.) and a description of the organic functional groups found in the database. We also provide some suggestions on further analyses that could be made.
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.