Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34718711›Full record

ArticleMutagenesis2021

Biomarkers of DNA damage response improve in vitro micronucleus assays by revealing genotoxic mode of action and reducing the occurrence of irrelevant positive results.

Svetlana Avlasevich, Tina Pellegrin, Manali Godse, Steven Bryce, Jeffrey Bemis, Peter Bajorski, Stephen Dertinger

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Mutagenesis, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 36% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. TGx-DDI (toxicogenomic DNA damage-inducing) biomarker validation: multi-site ring trial supporting regulatory use.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2025
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Svetlana AvlasevichLitron Laboratories, 3500 Winton Place, Rochester, NY 14623, USA.
Tina PellegrinLitron Laboratories, 3500 Winton Place, Rochester, NY 14623, USA.
Manali GodseDepartment of Mathematics, Rochester Institute of Technology, 1 Lomb Memorial Drive, Rochester, NY 14623, USA.
Steven BryceLitron Laboratories, 3500 Winton Place, Rochester, NY 14623, USA.
Jeffrey BemisLitron Laboratories, 3500 Winton Place, Rochester, NY 14623, USA.
Peter BajorskiDepartment of Mathematics, Rochester Institute of Technology, 1 Lomb Memorial Drive, Rochester, NY 14623, USA.
Stephen DertingerLitron Laboratories, 3500 Winton Place, Rochester, NY 14623, USA.
Litron Laboratories (United States) · USRochester Institute of Technology · US

Funding

High Throughput Screen and High Information Follow-Up Tests for GenotoxicantsR44ES033138 · NIEHS · LITRON LABORATORIES, LTD. · PI BEMIS, JEFFREY C, DERTINGER, STEPHEN D · 2021 to 2023
$1.8M
Next Generation Testing Strategies for Assessment of GenotoxicityR44ES029014 · NIEHS · LITRON LABORATORIES, LTD. · PI BEMIS, JEFFREY C, DERTINGER, STEPHEN D · 2018 to 2020
$1.1M
NIEHS NIH HHS R44ES029014NIEHS NIH HHS R44 ES033138
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We have previously described two flow cytometry-based in vitro genotoxicity tests: micronucleus (MN) scoring (MicroFlow®) and a multiplexed DNA damage response biomarker assay (MultiFlow®). Here, we describe a strategy for combining the assays in order to efficiently supplement MN analyses with a panel of biomarkers that comment on cytotoxicity (i.e. relative nuclei count, relative increased nuclei count, cleaved PARP-positive chromatin and ethidium monoazide-positive chromatin) and genotoxic mode of action (MoA; i.e. γH2AX, phospho-histone H3, p53 activation and polyploidy). For these experiments, human TK6 cells were exposed to each of 32 well-studied reference chemicals in 96-well plates for 24 continuous hours. The test chemicals were evaluated over a range of concentrations in the presence and absence of a rat liver S9-based metabolic activation system. MultiFlow assay data were acquired at 4 and 24 h, and micronuclei were scored at 24 h. Testing 32 chemicals in two metabolic activation arms translated into 64 a priori calls: 42 genotoxicants and 22 non-genotoxicants. The MN assay showed high sensitivity and moderate specificity (90% and 68%, respectively). When a genotoxic call required significant MN and MultiFlow responses, specificity increased to 95% without adversely affecting sensitivity. The dose-response data were analysed with PROAST Benchmark Dose (BMD) software in order to calculate potency metrics for each endpoint, and ToxPi software was used to synthesise the resulting lower and upper bound 90% confidence intervals into visual profiles. The BMD/ToxPi combination was found to represent a powerful strategy for synthesising multiple BMD confidence intervals, as the software output provided MoA information as well as insights into genotoxic potency.

Indexed as

Activation, MetabolicBiomarkersCell LineDNA DamageDose-Response Relationship, DrugHumansMicronucleus TestsMutagensSensitivity and SpecificityBiomarkersMutagens

Identifiers

PMID34718711
PMCPMC8633886
OpenAlexW3210458516

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.