ReviewPhysiological research2020
Comparison of methods used for evaluation of mutagenicity/genotoxicity of model chemicals - parabens.
Review in Physiological research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Genotoxic assessment of aPharmaceutical biology · 2025Article
- A perspective review on factors that influence mutagenicity in medicinal plants and their health implications.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2025Review
- Assessment of the toxic effects of parabens, commonly used preservatives in cosmetics, and their halogenated by-products on human skin and endothelial cells.NAM journal · 2025Article
- Exposure Profile and Characteristics of Parabens and Alkylphenols in Plasma among Rural Adults in Central China.Toxics · 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Growing worldwide efforts to replace (reduce) animal testing and to improve alternative in vitro tests which may be more efficient in terms of both time, cost and scientific validity include also genotoxicity/mutagenicity endpoints. The aim of the review article was to summarize currently available in vitro testing approaches in this field, their regulatory acceptance and recommended combinations for classification of chemicals. A study using the combination of Comet Assay performed on two cell lines and the Chromosomal Aberration test on human peripheral lymphocytes was performed with the aim to predict the genotoxic potential of selected paraben esters, serving as a model chemical group. Parabens are widely used in consumer products as preservatives and have been reported to exhibit inconclusive results in numerous genotoxicity studies. The Comet Assay identified Ethylparaben and Benzylparaben as potentially genotoxic. The Chromosomal Aberration test revealed weak genotoxic potential in case of Ethylparaben and positive genotoxicity in case of Butylparaben, Propylparaben and Isopropylparaben. The main reasons for variability seem to be limited water solubility of parabens, determining their bioavailability at the cellular level, and absence of metabolic activation in the Comet Assay. The results confirmed that the Comet Assay should serve as a screening test and should not be used as a stand-alone method for classification of genotoxicity. The weight of evidence approach in risk assessment should be supported with data generated with the use of human relevant in vitro methods based on cells / tissues of human origin.
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.