Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40639678›Full record

ArticleRegulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP2025

Genotoxicity evaluation of ten nitrosamine drug substance-related impurities using 2D and 3D HepaRG cell models.

Ji-Eun Seo, Hannah Xu, Xilin Li, Aisar H Atrakchi, Timothy McGovern, Karen L Davis Bruno, David A Keire, Nan Mei, Robert H Heflich, Xiaoqing Guo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Complex versus simpleScience advances · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Development of a DNA damage assay system using stable human hepatocytes.Genes and environment : the official journal of the Japanese Environmental Mutagen Society · 2026
    Article
  7. Beyond monolayers: a comparative analysis of 2D cell cultures and 3DFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026
    Review
  8. 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

10 authors.

Ji-Eun SeoNational Center for Toxicological Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Jefferson, AR, 72079, USA. Electronic address: Jieun.Seo@fda.hhs.gov.
Hannah XuNational Center for Toxicological Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Jefferson, AR, 72079, USA.
Xilin LiNational Center for Toxicological Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Jefferson, AR, 72079, USA.
Aisar H AtrakchiCenter for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, 20993, USA.
Timothy McGovernCenter for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, 20993, USA.
Karen L Davis BrunoCenter for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, 20993, USA.
David A KeireCenter for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, 20993, USA.
Nan MeiNational Center for Toxicological Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Jefferson, AR, 72079, USA.
Robert H HeflichNational Center for Toxicological Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Jefferson, AR, 72079, USA.
Xiaoqing GuoNational Center for Toxicological Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Jefferson, AR, 72079, USA. Electronic address: Xiaoqing.Guo@fda.hhs.gov.

Funding

Intramural FDA HHS FD999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The evaluation of nitrosamine drug substance-related impurities (NDSRIs) has become a regulatory priority due to potential carcinogenicity. Previously, we evaluated mutagenicity and genotoxicity of NDSRIs using the enhanced Ames Test (EAT) and human TK6 cells. In this study, we investigated the genotoxicity of ten of these NDSRIs using metabolically competent human HepaRG cells. DNA damage and micronucleus (MN) formation were evaluated in both 2D and 3D models using the CometChip and flow-cytometry-based MN assays, respectively. After 24-h exposure, five EAT-positive NDSRIs, N-nitroso-duloxetine, N-nitroso-fluoxetine, N-nitroso-lorcaserin, N-nitroso-nortriptyline, and N-nitroso-varenicline, significantly induced DNA damage in both 2D and 3D models and increased MN and γH2A.X formation in 3D spheroids. Only three EAT-positive NDSRIs, N-nitroso-duloxetine, N-nitroso-fluoxetine, and N-nitroso-nortriptyline, increased MN frequency in 2D cultures. The five EAT-negative NDSRIs, N-nitroso-diclofenac, N-nitroso-folic acid, N-nitroso-paroxetine, N-nitroso-desvaleryl-valsartan, and N-nitroso-desvaleryl-valsartan methyl ester, showed no DNA damage or MN formation in either model. Quantitative comparisons showed that N-nitroso-nortriptyline was the most potent genotoxicant in HepaRG cells. Overall, the ten NDSRIs exhibited the same positive/negative genotoxicity outcomes in both the EAT and 3D HepaRG spheroids. These findings support the use of 3D HepaRG spheroids as an alternative in vitro model for detecting NDSRI-induced genotoxicity and confirming NDSRI responses in the EAT.

Indexed as

Drug ContaminationMutagensNitrosaminesCell LineComet AssayDNA DamageHumansMicronucleus TestsMutagenicity TestsSpheroids, CellularMutagensNitrosaminesBenchmark concentrationGenotoxicityHepaRG cellsNitrosamine drug substance-related impurities (NDSRIs)N-Nitrosamine impurities

Identifiers

PMID40639678
PMCPMC12442021

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.