Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33646007›Full record

ReviewPhysiological research2020

Comparison of methods used for evaluation of mutagenicity/genotoxicity of model chemicals - parabens.

J Chrz, B Hošíková, L Svobodová, D Očadlíková, H Kolářová, M Dvořáková, K Kejlová, L Malina, G Jírová, A Vlková and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 37% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Genotoxic assessment of aPharmaceutical biology · 2025
    Article
  2. 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 · 2025
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

11 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

J ChrzNational Institute of Public Health, Centre of Toxicology and Health Safety, Prague, Czech Republic. jan.chrz@szu.cz.
B Hošíková
L Svobodová
D Očadlíková
H Kolářová
M Dvořáková
K Kejlová
L Malina
G Jírová
A Vlková
M Mannerström
National Institute of Public Health · CZInstitute of Molecular and Translational Medicine · CZPalacký University Olomouc · CZCzech University of Life Sciences Prague · CZTampere University · FI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Animal Testing AlternativesDNA DamageMutagenicity TestsAnimalsCell SurvivalChromosome AberrationsComet AssayHaCaT CellsHumansLymphocytesMicronuclei, Chromosome-DefectiveMicronucleus TestsMutagenesisParabensRisk AssessmentParabens

Identifiers

PMID33646007
PMCPMC8603696
OpenAlexW3134939786

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.