ReviewMutagenesis2024
An integrated in vitro carcinogenicity test that distinguishes between genotoxic carcinogens, non-genotoxic carcinogens, and non-carcinogens.
Review in Mutagenesis, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Chemical safety testing plays a crucial role in product and pharmacological development, as well as chemoprevention; however, in vitro genotoxicity safety tests do not always accurately predict the chemicals that will be in vivo carcinogens. If chemicals test positive in vitro for genotoxicity but negative in vivo, this can contribute to unnecessary testing in animals used to confirm erroneous in vitro positive results. Current in vitro tests typically evaluate only genotoxicity endpoints, which limits their potential to detect non-genotoxic carcinogens. The frequency of misleading in vitro positive results can be high, leading to a requirement for more informative in vitro tests. It is now recognized that multiple-endpoint genotoxicity testing may aid more accurate detection of carcinogens and non-carcinogens. The objective of this review was to evaluate the utility of our novel, multiple-endpoint in vitro test, which uses multiple cancer-relevant endpoints to predict carcinogenic potential. The tool assessed micronucleus frequency, p53 expression, p21 expression, mitochondrial respiration, cell cycle abnormalities and, uniquely, cell morphology changes in human lymphoblastoid cell lines, TK6 and MCL-5. The endpoints were used to observe cellular responses to 18 chemicals within the following categories: genotoxic carcinogens, non-genotoxic carcinogens, toxic non-carcinogens, and misleading in vitro positive and negative agents. The number of endpoints significantly altered for each chemical was considered, alongside the holistic Integrated Signature of Carcinogenicity score, derived from the sum of fold changes for all endpoints. Following the calculation of an overall score from these measures, carcinogens exhibited greater potency than non-carcinogens. Genotoxic carcinogens were generally more potent than non-genotoxic carcinogens. This novel approach therefore demonstrated potential for correctly predicting whether chemicals with unknown mechanism may be considered carcinogens. Overall, while further validation is recommended, the test demonstrates potential for the identification of carcinogenic compounds. Adoption of the approach could enable reduced animal use in carcinogenicity testing.
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.