Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35172012›Full record

ArticleToxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology2022

Integrating Data From In Vitro New Approach Methodologies for Developmental Neurotoxicity.

Kelly E Carstens, Amy F Carpenter, Melissa M Martin, Joshua A Harrill, Timothy J Shafer, Katie Paul Friedman

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
5.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Leveraging the developmental neurotoxicityFrontiers in toxicology · 2026
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Bioactivity of the ubiquitous tire preservative 6PPD and degradant, 6PPD-quinone in fish- and mammalian-based assays.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kelly E CarstensCenter for Computational Toxicology and Exposure, ORD, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, USA.
Amy F CarpenterCenter for Computational Toxicology and Exposure, ORD, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, USA.
Melissa M MartinCenter for Computational Toxicology and Exposure, ORD, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, USA.
Joshua A HarrillCenter for Computational Toxicology and Exposure, ORD, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4317-6391
Timothy J ShaferCenter for Computational Toxicology and Exposure, ORD, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8069-9987
Katie Paul FriedmanCenter for Computational Toxicology and Exposure, ORD, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2710-1691
Environmental Protection Agency · USOak Ridge Associated Universities · US

Funding

EPAIntramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In vivo developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) testing is resource intensive and lacks information on cellular processes affected by chemicals. To address this, DNT new approach methodologies (NAMs) are being evaluated, including: the microelectrode array neuronal network formation assay; and high-content imaging to evaluate proliferation, apoptosis, neurite outgrowth, and synaptogenesis. This work addresses 3 hypotheses: (1) a broad screening battery provides a sensitive marker of DNT bioactivity; (2) selective bioactivity (occurring at noncytotoxic concentrations) may indicate functional processes disrupted; and, (3) a subset of endpoints may optimally classify chemicals with in vivo evidence for DNT. The dataset was comprised of 92 chemicals screened in all 57 assay endpoints sourced from publicly available data, including a set of DNT NAM evaluation chemicals with putative positives (53) and negatives (13). The DNT NAM battery provides a sensitive marker of DNT bioactivity, particularly in cytotoxicity and network connectivity parameters. Hierarchical clustering suggested potency (including cytotoxicity) was important for classifying positive chemicals with high sensitivity (93%) but failed to distinguish patterns of disrupted functional processes. In contrast, clustering of selective values revealed informative patterns of differential activity but demonstrated lower sensitivity (74%). The false negatives were associated with several limitations, such as the maximal concentration tested or gaps in the biology captured by the current battery. This work demonstrates that this multi-dimensional assay suite provides a sensitive biomarker for DNT bioactivity, with selective activity providing possible insight into specific functional processes affected by chemical exposure and a basis for further research.

Indexed as

Neurotoxicity SyndromesToxicity TestsHumansNeurogenesisNeuronal OutgrowthNeuronscomputational toxicologydevelopmental neurotoxicityhigh throughput

Identifiers

PMID35172012
PMCPMC9421662
OpenAlexW4211053108

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.