Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32780103›Full record

ArticleMutagenesis2020

Adaptation of the in vitro micronucleus assay for genotoxicity testing using 3D liver models supporting longer-term exposure durations.

Gillian E Conway, Ume-Kulsoom Shah, Samantha Llewellyn, Tereza Cervena, Stephen J Evans, Abdullah S Al Ali, Gareth J Jenkins, Martin J D Clift, Shareen H Doak

Erratum issuedOpen access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Mutagenesis, 2020. 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 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 3D Liver Models for Genotoxicity Testing.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Application of HepaRG cells for genotoxicity assessment: a review.Journal of environmental science and health. Part C, Toxicology and carcinogenesis · 2024
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Gillian E ConwayIn Vitro Toxicology Group, Institute of Life Science, Swansea University Medical School, Singleton Park Campus, Swansea, Wales, UK.
Ume-Kulsoom ShahIn Vitro Toxicology Group, Institute of Life Science, Swansea University Medical School, Singleton Park Campus, Swansea, Wales, UK.
Samantha LlewellynIn Vitro Toxicology Group, Institute of Life Science, Swansea University Medical School, Singleton Park Campus, Swansea, Wales, UK.
Tereza CervenaIn Vitro Toxicology Group, Institute of Life Science, Swansea University Medical School, Singleton Park Campus, Swansea, Wales, UK.
Stephen J EvansIn Vitro Toxicology Group, Institute of Life Science, Swansea University Medical School, Singleton Park Campus, Swansea, Wales, UK.
Abdullah S Al AliIn Vitro Toxicology Group, Institute of Life Science, Swansea University Medical School, Singleton Park Campus, Swansea, Wales, UK.
Gareth J JenkinsIn Vitro Toxicology Group, Institute of Life Science, Swansea University Medical School, Singleton Park Campus, Swansea, Wales, UK.
Martin J D CliftIn Vitro Toxicology Group, Institute of Life Science, Swansea University Medical School, Singleton Park Campus, Swansea, Wales, UK.
Shareen H DoakIn Vitro Toxicology Group, Institute of Life Science, Swansea University Medical School, Singleton Park Campus, Swansea, Wales, UK.
Swansea University · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council G1000821
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Following advancements in the field of genotoxicology, it has become widely accepted that 3D models are not only more physiologically relevant but also have the capacity to elucidate more complex biological processes that standard 2D monocultures are unable to. Whilst 3D liver models have been developed to evaluate the short-term genotoxicity of chemicals, the aim of this study was to develop a 3D model that could be used with the regulatory accepted in vitro micronucleus (MN) following low-dose, longer-term (5 days) exposure to engineered nanomaterials (ENMs). A comparison study was carried out between advanced models generated from two commonly used liver cell lines, namely HepaRG and HepG2, in spheroid format. While both spheroid systems displayed good liver functionality and viability over 14 days, the HepaRG spheroids lacked the capacity to actively proliferate and, therefore, were considered unsuitable for use with the MN assay. This study further demonstrated the efficacy of the in vitro 3D HepG2 model to be used for short-term (24 h) exposures to genotoxic chemicals, aflatoxin B1 (AFB1) and methyl-methanesulfonate (MMS). The 3D HepG2 liver spheroids were shown to be more sensitive to DNA damage induced by AFB1 and MMS when compared to the HepG2 2D monoculture. This 3D model was further developed to allow for longer-term (5 day) ENM exposure. Four days after seeding, HepG2 spheroids were exposed to Zinc Oxide ENM (0-2 µg/ml) for 5 days and assessed using both the cytokinesis-block MN (CBMN) version of the MN assay and the mononuclear MN assay. Following a 5-day exposure, differences in MN frequency were observed between the CBMN and mononuclear MN assay, demonstrating that DNA damage induced within the first few cell cycles is distributed across the mononucleated cell population. Together, this study demonstrates the necessity to adapt the MN assay accordingly, to allow for the accurate assessment of genotoxicity following longer-term, low-dose ENM exposure.

Indexed as

Spheroids, CellularAflatoxin B1Cell Culture TechniquesCell LineHepatocytesHep G2 CellsHumansLiverMethyl MethanesulfonateMicronucleus TestsModels, BiologicalMutagensAflatoxin B1Methyl MethanesulfonateMutagens

Identifiers

PMID32780103
PMCPMC7486679
OpenAlexW3048498612

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.