ReviewArchives of toxicology2023
Genotoxicity assessment: opportunities, challenges and perspectives for quantitative evaluations of dose-response data.
Review in Archives of toxicology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Do Gadolinium-Based Contrasts Represent a High Risk for Genotoxicity in Mammalian Cells? A Systematic Review.Journal of applied toxicology : JAT · 2025Pooled it
- Advancing genotoxicity assessment with transcriptomic biomarkers: from 2D to 3D HepaRG spheroid models.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2026Article
- Toxicological and Cytogenetic Screening of Strontium Ranelate Alone and in Combination With Resveratrol.Chemistry & biodiversity · 2026Article
- Sea Urchin-Like Platinum-Coated Gold Nanozymes-Based Ultra-Sensitive Colorimetric Detection and Mechanism Differentiation Platform for Dual-Marker Guided Genotoxicity Assessment.Advanced healthcare materials · 2026Article
- Article
- Carcinogenic Medications: A Review of Specific Agents and Molecular Mechanisms of Carcinogenesis.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2026Review
- Targeting oxidative stress and neurodegeneration: the role of Putranjiva roxburghii in Alzheimer's.Inflammopharmacology · 2026Review
- Regulation of chemicals demands assessment of risks rather than identification of hazards only.Archives of toxicology · 2026Article
- Modern Approaches in Genetic Toxicology Research: Insights from Next-Generation-Based RNA Sequencing.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2026Article
- Severity of effect considerations regarding the use of mutation as a toxicological endpoint for risk assessment: A report from the 8th International Workshop on Genotoxicity Testing (IWGT).Environmental and molecular mutagenesis · 2025Review
- Nanotoxicity of Porous Silica Nanoparticles: Physicochemical Properties and Mechanistic Cellular Endpoints.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Graph Neural Network-Based Toxicity Prediction by Integrating Molecular Fingerprints and Knowledge Graph Features.Toxics · 2025Article
- Evaluating the Genotoxicity and Mutagenicity of Food Contaminants: Acrylamide, Penitrem A, and 3-Acetyldeoxynivalenol in Individual and Combined Exposure In Vitro.Journal of applied toxicology : JAT · 2025Article
- Application of Biological Modifiers to a Multiplexed, Human Cell-Based DNA Damage Assay Provides Mechanistic Information on Genotoxicity and Molecular Targets.Environmental and molecular mutagenesis · 2025Article
- Benchmark Response (BMR) Values for In Vivo Mutagenicity Endpoints.Environmental and molecular mutagenesis · 2025Article
- A benchmark concentration-based strategy for evaluating the combined effects of genotoxic compounds in TK6 cells.Archives of toxicology · 2025Article
- Do the azo food colorings carmoisine and ponceau 4R have a genotoxic potential?Toxicology research · 2025Article
- Scoping review on the genotoxicity of silver nanoparticles in endodontics: therapeutic saviors or genetic saboteurs?Odontology · 2025Article
- Advances in Cellular and Molecular Biology Assays: A Review of Gold Standard Methods.International journal of innovative science and research technology · 2025Article
- Analysis of genotoxic effects of food preservatives sodium acetate (E262) and sodium sulfite (E221) in human lymphocytes.Food science and biotechnology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Genotoxicity data are mainly interpreted in a qualitative way, which typically results in a binary classification of chemical entities. For more than a decade, there has been a discussion about the need for a paradigm shift in this regard. Here, we review current opportunities, challenges and perspectives for a more quantitative approach to genotoxicity assessment. Currently discussed opportunities mainly include the determination of a reference point (e.g., a benchmark dose) from genetic toxicity dose-response data, followed by calculation of a margin of exposure (MOE) or derivation of a health-based guidance value (HBGV). In addition to new opportunities, major challenges emerge with the quantitative interpretation of genotoxicity data. These are mainly rooted in the limited capability of standard in vivo genotoxicity testing methods to detect different types of genetic damage in multiple target tissues and the unknown quantitative relationships between measurable genotoxic effects and the probability of experiencing an adverse health outcome. In addition, with respect to DNA-reactive mutagens, the question arises whether the widely accepted assumption of a non-threshold dose-response relationship is at all compatible with the derivation of a HBGV. Therefore, at present, any quantitative genotoxicity assessment approach remains to be evaluated case-by-case. The quantitative interpretation of in vivo genotoxicity data for prioritization purposes, e.g., in connection with the MOE approach, could be seen as a promising opportunity for routine application. However, additional research is needed to assess whether it is possible to define a genotoxicity-derived MOE that can be considered indicative of a low level of concern. To further advance quantitative genotoxicity assessment, priority should be given to the development of new experimental methods to provide a deeper mechanistic understanding and a more comprehensive basis for the analysis of dose-response relationships.
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.