Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40186380›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental and molecular mutagenesis2025

Benchmark Response (BMR) Values for In Vivo Mutagenicity Endpoints.

Paul A White, Guangchao Chen, Nikolai Chepelev, Madison A Bell, Lauren R Gallant, George E Johnson, Andreas Zeller, Marc A Beal, Alexandra S Long

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. From TDArchives of toxicology · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Complex versus simpleScience advances · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Mutation accumulation following extended exposure of human HepaRG cells to a genotoxic carcinogen.Journal of environmental science and health. Part C, Toxicology and carcinogenesis · 2025
    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

9 authors.

Paul A WhiteEnvironmental Health Science and Research Bureau, Environmental and Radiation Health Sciences Directorate, Health Canada, Ottawa, Canada.
Guangchao ChenCentre for Prevention, Lifestyle and Health, RIVM (National Institute for Public Health and the Environment), Bilthoven, the Netherlands.
Nikolai ChepelevEnvironmental Health Science and Research Bureau, Environmental and Radiation Health Sciences Directorate, Health Canada, Ottawa, Canada.
Madison A BellDepartment of Biology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Lauren R GallantDepartment of Biology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
George E JohnsonSwansea University Medical School, Swansea University, Swansea, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5643-9942
Andreas ZellerPharmaceutical Sciences, pRED Innovation Center Basel, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., Basel, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-3565-6347
Marc A BealBureau of Chemical Safety, Food and Nutrition Directorate, Health Canada, Ottawa, Canada.
Alexandra S LongExisting Substances Risk Assessment Bureau, Safe Environments Directorate, Health Canada, Ottawa, Canada.

Funding

Health CanadaRijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu I/133002/02/DR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The benchmark dose (BMD) approach constitutes the most effective and pragmatic strategy for the derivation of a point of departure (PoD) for comparative potency analysis, risk assessment, and regulatory decision-making. There is considerable controversy regarding the most appropriate benchmark response (BMR) for genotoxicity endpoints. This work employed the Slob (2017) Effect Size (ES) theory to define robust BMR values for the in vivo transgenic rodent (TGR) and Pig-a mutagenicity endpoints. An extensive database of dose-response data was prepared and curated; BMD analyses were used to determine endpoint-specific maxima (i.e., parameter c) and within-group variance (i.e., var). Detailed analyses investigated the dependence of var on experimental factors such as tissue, administration route, treatment duration, and post-exposure tissue sampling time. The overall lack of influence of these experimental factors on var permitted the determination of typical values for the endpoints investigated. Typical var for the TGR endpoint is 0.19; the value for the Pig-a endpoint is 0.29. Endpoint-specific var values were used to calculate endpoint-specific BMR values; the values are 47% for TGR and 60% for Pig-a. Endpoint-specific BMR values were also calculated using the trimmed distribution of study-specific standard deviation (SD) values for concurrent controls. Those analyses yielded endpoint-specific BMR values for the TGR and Pig-a endpoints of 33% and 58%, respectively. Considering the results obtained, and the in vivo genetic toxicity BMR values noted in the literature, we recommend a BMR of 50% for in vivo mutagenicity endpoints. The value can be employed to interpret mutagenicity dose-response data in a risk assessment context.

Indexed as

BenchmarkingEndpoint DeterminationMutagensAnimalsAnimals, Genetically ModifiedDose-Response Relationship, DrugMembrane ProteinsMiceMutagenicity TestsRisk AssessmentMembrane ProteinsMutagensphosphatidylinositol glycan-class A protein

Identifiers

PMID40186380
PMCPMC12087735

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.