ArticleEpigenetics insights2022
Toxicoepigenetics for Risk Assessment: Bridging the Gap Between Basic and Regulatory Science.
Article in Epigenetics insights, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The effects of ingested cellulose nanomaterials on DNA methylation in intestinal cells.Particle and fibre toxicology · 2026Article
- Multi-omics approaches for understanding gene-environment interactions in noncommunicable diseases: techniques, translation, and equity issues.Human genomics · 2025Review
- Gene-environment interactions within a precision environmental health framework.Cell genomics · 2024Review
- Expanding adverse outcome pathways towards one health models for nanosafety.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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Toxicoepigenetics examines the health effects of environmental exposure associated with, or mediated by, changes in the epigenome. Despite high expectations, toxicoepigenomic data and methods have yet to become significantly utilized in chemical risk assessment. This article draws on a social science framework to highlight hitherto overlooked structural barriers to the incorporation of toxicoepigenetics in risk assessment and to propose ways forward. The present barriers stem not only from the lack of maturity of the field but also from differences in constraints and standards between the data produced by toxicoepigenetics and the regulatory science data that risk assessment processes require. Criteria and strategies that frame the validation of knowledge used for regulatory purposes limit the application of basic research in toxicoepigenetics toward risk assessment. First, the need in regulatory toxicology for standardized methods that form a consensus between regulatory agencies, basic research, and the industry conflicts with the wealth of heterogeneous data in toxicoepigenetics. Second, molecular epigenetic data do not readily translate into typical toxicological endpoints. Third, toxicoepigenetics investigates new forms of toxicity, in particular low-dose and long-term effects, that do not align well with the traditional framework of regulatory toxicology. We propose that increasing the usefulness of epigenetic data for risk assessment will require deliberate efforts on the part of the toxicoepigenetics community in 4 areas: fostering the understanding of epigenetics among risk assessors, developing knowledge infrastructure to demonstrate applicability, facilitating the normalization and exchange of data, and opening the field to other stakeholders.
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.