ArticleEnvironmental and molecular mutagenesis2025
Re-Evaluating Acceptable Intake: A Comparative Study of N-Nitrosomorpholine and N-Nitroso Reboxetine Potency.
Article in Environmental and molecular mutagenesis, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Differential Mutagenic Response of Rat Liver and Lung to Nicotine-Derived Nitrosamine Ketone (NNK).Chemical research in toxicology · 2026Article
- Complex versus simpleScience advances · 2026Article
- Benchmark Response Values for Error-Corrected Sequencing Mutagenicity Assessment Technologies.Environmental and molecular mutagenesis · 2026Article
- Mutagenicity of EAT-positive NDSRIs in HepaRG spheroids.NAM journal · 2026Article
- Application of error-corrected sequencing technologies for in vivo regulatory mutagenicity assessment.Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP · 2026Review
- Deriving safe limits for N-nitroso-bisoprolol by error-corrected next-generation sequencing (ecNGS) and benchmark dose (BMD) analysis, integrated with QM modeling and CYP-docking analysis.Archives of toxicology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Establishing regulatory limits for Drug Substance-Related Impurities (NDSRIs) is challenging due to the limited genotoxicity and carcinogenicity data available for many of these impurities, often leading to conservative approaches. In this study, we evaluated the genotoxic potential of two structurally related nitrosamines: N-nitrosomorpholine (NMOR) and N-nitroso reboxetine. Compared to the well-studied NMOR, there is little toxicological information available for N-nitroso reboxetine. Currently, both compounds have an acceptable intake value of 127 ng/day, based on a read-across using the available carcinogenicity data of NMOR. While both compounds tested positive in a series of in vitro and in vivo assays, we found that the mutagenic potential of N-nitroso reboxetine was significantly lower than that of NMOR. The benchmark dose (BMD) analysis of in vivo mutagenicity data supports an acceptable intake of 24,000 ng/day for N-nitroso reboxetine. Computational studies, carried out using the quantum-mechanical CADRE program, were consistent with in vitro and in vivo outcomes, suggesting an acceptable intake at or above 1500 ng/day for N-nitroso reboxetine. In comparison to NMOR, this prediction is supported by lower computed reactivity in the hydroxylation step, greater steric hindrance of the alpha carbons, and more facile proton transfer in the heterolysis toward the aldehyde metabolite. The data presented in this work can be used to refine and improve the Carcinogenic Potency Categorization Approach (CPCA). It also underscores the importance of collaboration between regulatory authorities, the pharmaceutical industry, and scientific researchers to address potential risks while avoiding overestimation of the acceptable intake limits for certain NDSRIs.
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.