Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35690411›Full record

SynthesisMutation research. Reviews in mutation research

Epigenetic alterations induced by genotoxic occupational and environmental human chemical carcinogens: An update of a systematic literature review.

Samantha Goodman, Grace Chappell, Kathryn Z Guyton, Igor P Pogribny, Ivan Rusyn

Open access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Mutation research. Reviews in mutation research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Beyond genes: a clinician's guide to epigenetics.Breathe (Sheffield, England) · 2025
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Molecular Impacts of Occupational Exposure to Waste Anesthetic Gases.Environmental and molecular mutagenesis · 2025
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Samantha GoodmanDepartment of Veterinary Integrative Biosciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA.
Grace ChappellToxStrategies, Inc., Asheville, NC, USA.
Kathryn Z GuytonInternational Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France.
Igor P PogribnyNational Center for Toxicological Research, US Food and Drug Administration, Jefferson, AR, USA.
Ivan RusynDepartment of Veterinary Integrative Biosciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA. Electronic address: irusyn@cvm.tamu.edu.
Texas A&M University · USCentre international de recherche sur le cancer · FRNational Center for Toxicological Research · US

Funding

Regulatory Science in Environmental Health and ToxicologyT32ES026568 · NIEHS · TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY · PI Weihsueh A Chiu, Natalie M Johnson · 2016 to 2026
$3.8M
Chromatin regions, genes and pathways that confer susceptibility to chemical-induced DNA damageR01ES029911 · NIEHS · TEXAS A&M AGRILIFE RESEARCH · PI RUSYN, IVAN, THREADGILL, DAVID W. · 2019 to 2023
$3.3M
NIEHS NIH HHS R01 ES029911NIEHS NIH HHS T32 ES026568World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Epigenetic alterations, such as changes in DNA methylation, histones/chromatin structure, nucleosome positioning, and expression of non-coding RNAs, are recognized among key characteristics of carcinogens; they may occur independently or concomitantly with genotoxic effects. While data on genotoxicity are collected through standardized guideline tests, data collected on epigenetic effects is far less uniform. In 2016, we conducted a systematic review of published studies of genotoxic carcinogens that reported epigenetic endpoints to better understand the evidence for epigenetic alterations of human carcinogens, and the potential association with genotoxic endpoints. Since then, the number of studies of epigenetic effects of chemicals has nearly doubled. This review stands as an update on epigenetic alterations induced by occupational and environmental human carcinogens that were previously and recently classified as Group 1 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. We found that the evidence of epigenetic effects remains uneven across agents. Studies of DNA methylation are most abundant, while reports concerning effects on non-coding RNA have increased over the past 5 years. By contrast, mechanistic toxicology studies of histone modifications and chromatin state alterations remain few. We found that most publications of epigenetic effects of carcinogens were studies in exposed humans or human cells. Studies in rodents represent the second most common species used for epigenetic studies in toxicology, in vivo exposures being the most predominant. Future studies should incorporate dose- and time-dependent study designs and also investigate the persistence of effects following cessation of exposure, considering the dynamic nature of most epigenetic alterations.

Indexed as

Carcinogens, EnvironmentalEpigenomicsCarcinogensChromatinDNA DamageEpigenesis, GeneticHumansCarcinogensCarcinogens, EnvironmentalChromatinCancerEpigeneticsGenotoxicityHazard assessmentToxicology

Identifiers

PMID35690411
PMCPMC9188653
OpenAlexW4200318509

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.