ArticleToxics2021
Direct Comparison of the Lowest Effect Concentrations of Mutagenic Reference Substances in Two Ames Test Formats.
Article in Toxics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- High-Throughput Testing for Unknown Mutagens and Cytotoxica via Duplex Planar Ames-Cytotoxicity Bioassay Including Metabolic S9 Activation.Analytical chemistry · 2026Article
- Oral Acute Toxicity and Genotoxicity of Heteroctenus junceus Scorpion Venom.Veterinary medicine and science · 2026Article
- Preliminary Analysis of Printed Polypropylene Foils and Pigments After Thermal Treatment Using DSC and Ames Tests.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Ames Assay Transferred from the Microtiter Plate to the Planar Assay Format.Journal of xenobiotics · 2025Article
- Article
- Combination of Multidimensional Instrumental Analysis and the Ames Test for the Toxicological Evaluation of Mineral Oil Aromatic Hydrocarbons.Journal of agricultural and food chemistry · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
The Ames assay is the standard assay for identifying DNA-reactive genotoxic substances. Multiple formats are available and the correct choice of an assay protocol is essential for achieving optimal performance, including fit for purpose detection limits and required screening capacity. In the present study, a comparison of those parameters between two commonly used formats, the standard pre-incubation Ames test and the liquid-based Ames MPF™, was performed. For that purpose, twenty-one substances with various modes of action were chosen and tested for their lowest effect concentrations (LEC) with both tests. In addition, two sources of rat liver homogenate S9 fraction, Aroclor 1254-induced and phenobarbital/β-naphthoflavone induced, were compared in the Ames MPF™. Overall, the standard pre-incubation Ames and the Ames MPF™ assay showed high concordance (>90%) for mutagenic vs. non-mutagenic compound classification. The LEC values of the Ames MPF™ format were lower for 17 of the 21 of the selected test substances. The S9 source had no impact on the test results. This leads to the conclusion that the liquid-based Ames MPF™ assay format provides screening advantages when low concentrations are relevant, such as in the testing of complex mixtures.
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.