Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37234002›Full record

ArticleMutagenesis2023

Current status and future challenges of genotoxicity OECD Test Guidelines for nanomaterials: a workshop report.

Shareen H Doak, Cristina Andreoli, Michael J Burgum, Qasim Chaudhry, Eric A J Bleeker, Cecilia Bossa, Josefa Domenech, Damjana Drobne, Valérie Fessard, Nina Jeliazkova and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Mutagenesis, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  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

16 authors.

Shareen H DoakInstitute of Life Science, Swansea University Medical School, Singelton Park, Swansea, SA2 8PP Wales, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6753-1987
Cristina AndreoliDepartment of Environment and Health, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Rome, Italy.
Michael J BurgumInstitute of Life Science, Swansea University Medical School, Singelton Park, Swansea, SA2 8PP Wales, United Kingdom.
Qasim ChaudhryUniversity of Chester, Parkgate Road, Chester, United Kingdom.
Eric A J BleekerNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), PO Box 1, 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Cecilia BossaDepartment of Environment and Health, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Rome, Italy.
Josefa DomenechFinnish Institute of Occupational Health, Box 40, Työterveyslaitos, 00032 Helsinki, Finland.
Damjana DrobneUniversity of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Department of Biology, Vecan pot 111, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Valérie FessardANSES French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety, Fougères Laboratory, Toxicology of Contaminants Unit, 10b rue Claude Bourgelat, Fougères 35306, France.
Nina JeliazkovaIdeaconsult Ltd., Sofia, Bulgaria.
Eleonora LonghinNILU-Norwegian Institute for Air Research, Instituttveien 18, Kjeller 2002, Norway.
Elise Rundén-PranNILU-Norwegian Institute for Air Research, Instituttveien 18, Kjeller 2002, Norway.
Maciej StępnikQSAR Lab Ltd., Trzy Lipy 3 St., Gdańsk, Poland.
Naouale El YamaniNILU-Norwegian Institute for Air Research, Instituttveien 18, Kjeller 2002, Norway.
Julia CatalánFinnish Institute of Occupational Health, Box 40, Työterveyslaitos, 00032 Helsinki, Finland.
Maria DusinskaNILU-Norwegian Institute for Air Research, Instituttveien 18, Kjeller 2002, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genotoxicity testing for nanomaterials remains challenging as standard testing approaches require some adaptation, and further development of nano-specific OECD Test Guidelines (TGs) and Guidance Documents (GDs) are needed. However, the field of genotoxicology continues to progress and new approach methodologies (NAMs) are being developed that could provide relevant information on the range of mechanisms of genotoxic action that may be imparted by nanomaterials. There is a recognition of the need for implementation of new and/or adapted OECD TGs, new OECD GDs, and utilization of NAMs within a genotoxicity testing framework for nanomaterials. As such, the requirements to apply new experimental approaches and data for genotoxicity assessment of nanomaterials in a regulatory context is neither clear, nor used in practice. Thus, an international workshop with representatives from regulatory agencies, industry, government, and academic scientists was convened to discuss these issues. The expert discussion highlighted the current deficiencies that exist in standard testing approaches within exposure regimes, insufficient physicochemical characterization, lack of demonstration of cell or tissue uptake and internalization, and limitations in the coverage of genotoxic modes of action. Regarding the latter aspect, a consensus was reached on the importance of using NAMs to support the genotoxicity assessment of nanomaterials. Also highlighted was the need for close engagement between scientists and regulators to (i) provide clarity on the regulatory needs, (ii) improve the acceptance and use of NAM-generated data, and (iii) define how NAMs may be used as part of weight of evidence approaches for use in regulatory risk assessments.

Indexed as

NanostructuresOrganisation for Economic Co-Operation and DevelopmentMutagenicity TestsRisk Assessmentgenotoxicityin vitro 3D modelsnanomaterialsnanosafetynew approach methodologies (NAMs)OECD

Identifiers

PMID37234002
PMCPMC10448853

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.