Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37402810›Full record

ReviewArchives of toxicology2023

Genotoxicity assessment: opportunities, challenges and perspectives for quantitative evaluations of dose-response data.

Jakob Menz, Mario E Götz, Ulrike Gündel, Rainer Gürtler, Kristin Herrmann, Stefanie Hessel-Pras, Carsten Kneuer, Franziska Kolrep, Dana Nitzsche, Ulrike Pabel and 7 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Advancing genotoxicity assessment with transcriptomic biomarkers: from 2D to 3D HepaRG spheroid models.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Benchmark Response (BMR) Values for In Vivo Mutagenicity Endpoints.Environmental and molecular mutagenesis · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Advances in Cellular and Molecular Biology Assays: A Review of Gold Standard Methods.International journal of innovative science and research technology · 2025
    Article
  20. Article
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

17 authors.

Jakob MenzDepartment of Food Safety, German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Max-Dohrn-Str. 8-10, 10589, Berlin, Germany. jakob.menz@bfr.bund.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6519-4270
Mario E GötzDepartment of Food Safety, German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Max-Dohrn-Str. 8-10, 10589, Berlin, Germany.
Ulrike GündelDepartment of Chemical and Product Safety, German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Max-Dohrn-Str. 8-10, 10589, Berlin, Germany.
Rainer GürtlerDepartment of Food Safety, German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Max-Dohrn-Str. 8-10, 10589, Berlin, Germany.
Kristin HerrmannDepartment of Pesticides Safety, German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Max-Dohrn-Str. 8-10, 10589, Berlin, Germany.
Stefanie Hessel-PrasDepartment of Food Safety, German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Max-Dohrn-Str. 8-10, 10589, Berlin, Germany.
Carsten KneuerDepartment of Pesticides Safety, German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Max-Dohrn-Str. 8-10, 10589, Berlin, Germany.
Franziska KolrepDepartment of Safety in the Food Chain, German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Max-Dohrn-Str. 8-10, 10589, Berlin, Germany.
Dana NitzscheDepartment of Chemical and Product Safety, German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Max-Dohrn-Str. 8-10, 10589, Berlin, Germany.
Ulrike PabelDepartment of Safety in the Food Chain, German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Max-Dohrn-Str. 8-10, 10589, Berlin, Germany.
Benjamin SachseDepartment of Food Safety, German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Max-Dohrn-Str. 8-10, 10589, Berlin, Germany.
Sebastian SchmeisserDepartment of Chemical and Product Safety, German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Max-Dohrn-Str. 8-10, 10589, Berlin, Germany.
David M SchumacherDepartment of Safety in the Food Chain, German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Max-Dohrn-Str. 8-10, 10589, Berlin, Germany.
Tanja SchwerdtleGerman Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Max-Dohrn-Str. 8-10, 10589, Berlin, Germany.
Tewes TralauDepartment of Pesticides Safety, German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Max-Dohrn-Str. 8-10, 10589, Berlin, Germany.
Sebastian ZellmerDepartment of Chemical and Product Safety, German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Max-Dohrn-Str. 8-10, 10589, Berlin, Germany.
Bernd SchäferDepartment of Food Safety, German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Max-Dohrn-Str. 8-10, 10589, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

DNA DamageMutagensDNAMutagenicity TestsRisk AssessmentDNAMutagensDose–response analysisGenetic toxicologyHealth-based guidance valueMargin of exposurePoint of departureRisk assessment

Identifiers

PMID37402810
PMCPMC10404208

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.