ArticleArchives of toxicology2024
A multi-biomarker micronucleus assay using imaging flow cytometry.
Article in Archives of toxicology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Building trust in the integration of artificial intelligence into chemical risk assessment: findings from the 2024 ECETOC workshop.Archives of toxicology · 2026Article
- Deep learning and object detection methods for scoring cell types within the human buccal cell micronucleus and cytome assays for human biomonitoring.Mutagenesis · 2026Review
- Phytochemical Profile and In Vitro Cytotoxic, Genotoxic, and Antigenotoxic Evaluation ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Genetic toxicity testing assesses the potential of compounds to cause DNA damage. There are many genetic toxicology screening assays designed to assess the DNA damaging potential of chemicals in early drug development aiding the identification of promising drugs that have low-risk potential for causing genetic damage contributing to cancer risk in humans. Despite this, in vitro tests generate a high number of misleading positives, the consequences of which can lead to unnecessary animal testing and/or the abandonment of promising drug candidates. Understanding chemical Mode of Action (MoA) is vital to identifying the true genotoxic potential of substances and, therefore, the risk translation into the clinic. Here we demonstrate a simple, robust protocol for staining fixed, human-lymphoblast p53 proficient TK6 cells with antibodies against ɣH2AX, p53 and pH3S28 along with DRAQ5™ DNA staining that enables analysis of un-lysed cells via microscopy approaches such as imaging flow cytometry. Here, we used the Cytek® Amnis® ImageStream®X Mk II which provides a high-throughput acquisition platform with the sensitivity of flow cytometry and spatial morphological information associated with microscopy. Using the ImageStream manufacturer's software (IDEAS® 6.2), a masking strategy was developed to automatically detect and quantify micronucleus events (MN) and characterise biomarker populations. The gating strategy developed enables the generation of a template capable of automatically batch processing data files quantifying cell-cycle, MN, ɣH2AX, p53 and pH3 populations simultaneously. In this way, we demonstrate how a multiplex system enables DNA damage assessment alongside MN identification using un-lysed cells on the imaging flow cytometry platform. As a proof-of-concept, we use the tool chemicals carbendazim and methyl methanesulphonate (MMS) to demonstrate the assay's ability to correctly identify clastogenic or aneugenic MoAs using the biomarker profiles established.
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.