ArticleArchives of toxicology2022
Comprehensive interpretation of in vitro micronucleus test results for 292 chemicals: from hazard identification to risk assessment application.
Article in Archives of toxicology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- New Approach Methods in Genetic Toxicology.Environmental and molecular mutagenesis · 2026Article
- Cytotoxicity and Genotoxicity of Fluoride Toothpastes in Buccal Cells.Acta stomatologica Croatica · 2026Article
- A strategic discovery roadmap towards high-quality leads and drug development candidates for kinetoplastid diseases. Part 3: from lead towards a drug development candidate.The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2026Review
- From In Vitro Genotoxicity Assays to Human Biomarkers: Interpreting DNA Damage Signals in Long-Term SSRI Therapy through a Translational Neurotoxicology Lens.Neurotoxicity research · 2026Review
- Multiple Pesticides and their Mixtures Tested for Genotoxicity in the Micronucleus Assays on Intestinal Caco-2 Cells.Annals of global health · 2026Article
- Interpretation of in vitro concentration-response data for risk assessment and regulatory decision-making: Report from the 2022 IWGT quantitative analysis expert working group meeting.Environmental and molecular mutagenesis · 2025Review
- Critical Evaluation of Methods for the Identification of Aneugens.Environmental and molecular mutagenesis · 2025Review
- Impacts of Inorganic Arsenic Exposure on Genetic Stability of Human Mesenchymal Stromal Cells.Journal of applied toxicology : JAT · 2025Article
- Re-evaluation of neotame (E 961) as food additive.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2025Article
- Machine Learning for Toxicity Prediction Using Chemical Structures: Pillars for Success in the Real World.Chemical research in toxicology · 2025Review
- Benchmark Response (BMR) Values for In Vivo Mutagenicity Endpoints.Environmental and molecular mutagenesis · 2025Article
- A Double Fluorescent Staining Method Increases the Sensitivity of the Cytokinesis-Block Micronucleus Assay.Methods and protocols · 2025Article
- Unlocking the Power of Transcriptomic Biomarkers in Qualitative and Quantitative Genotoxicity Assessment of Chemicals.Chemical research in toxicology · 2024Article
- An integrated in vitro carcinogenicity test that distinguishes between genotoxic carcinogens, non-genotoxic carcinogens, and non-carcinogens.Mutagenesis · 2024Review
- A novel method to derive a human safety limit for PFOA by gene expression profiling and modelling.Frontiers in toxicology · 2024Article
- Genotoxicity assessment: opportunities, challenges and perspectives for quantitative evaluations of dose-response data.Archives of toxicology · 2023Review
- Application of a new approach methodology (NAM)-based strategy for genotoxicity assessment of data-poor compounds.Frontiers in toxicology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Risk assessments are increasingly reliant on information from in vitro assays. The in vitro micronucleus test (MNvit) is a genotoxicity test that detects chromosomal abnormalities, including chromosome breakage (clastogenicity) and/or whole chromosome loss (aneugenicity). In this study, MNvit datasets for 292 chemicals, generated by the US EPA's ToxCast program, were evaluated using a decision tree-based pipeline for hazard identification. Chemicals were tested with 19 concentrations (n = 1) up to 200 µM, in the presence and absence of Aroclor 1254-induced rat liver S9. To identify clastogenic chemicals, %MN values at each concentration were compared to a distribution of batch-specific solvent controls; this was followed by cytotoxicity assessment and benchmark concentration (BMC) analyses. The approach classified 157 substances as positives, 25 as negatives, and 110 as inconclusive. Using the approach described in Bryce et al. (Environ Mol Mutagen 52:280-286, 2011), we identified 15 (5%) aneugens. IVIVE (in vitro to in vivo extrapolation) was employed to convert BMCs into administered equivalent doses (AEDs). Where possible, AEDs were compared to points of departure (PODs) for traditional genotoxicity endpoints; AEDs were generally lower than PODs based on in vivo endpoints. To facilitate interpretation of in vitro MN assay concentration-response data for risk assessment, exposure estimates were utilized to calculate bioactivity exposure ratio (BER) values. BERs for 50 clastogens and two aneugens had AEDs that approached exposure estimates (i.e., BER < 100); these chemicals might be considered priorities for additional testing. This work provides a framework for the use of high-throughput in vitro genotoxicity testing for priority setting and chemical risk assessment.
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.