Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40682297›Full record

ReviewEnvironmental and molecular mutagenesis2025

Critical Evaluation of Methods for the Identification of Aneugens.

Xiaowen Sun, Stephen D Dertinger, Azeddine Elhajouji, Daniel J Roberts, Jan van Benthem, Maik Schuler, Shambhu Roy, Alexandra Taraboletti, Connie L Chen

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. New Approach Methods in Genetic Toxicology.Environmental and molecular mutagenesis · 2026
    Article
  2. Critical Evaluation of Methods for the Identification of Aneugens.Environmental and molecular mutagenesis · 2025
    Review
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.

Xiaowen SunPfizer, Groton, Connecticut, USA.
Stephen D DertingerLitron Laboratories, Rochester, New York, USA.
Azeddine ElhajoujiNovartis AG, Biomedical Research, Preclinical Safety, Basel, Switzerland.
Daniel J RobertsToxys Inc., New York, New York, USA.
Jan van BenthemNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, the Netherlands.
Maik SchulerPfizer, Groton, Connecticut, USA.
Shambhu RoyInotiv, Rockville, Maryland, USA.
Alexandra TarabolettiHealth and Environmental Sciences Institute, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8779-483X
Connie L ChenHealth and Environmental Sciences Institute, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3704-9866

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The genotoxic potential of chemicals must be evaluated in regulatory safety assessment settings, including but not limited to, the development of new pharmaceuticals, industrial chemicals, food and cosmetic ingredients, and agrochemicals. Initial assessment of the chromosome-damaging potential of chemicals is often conducted in mammalian cells using the micronucleus (MN) assay, a method capable of detecting both aneugenicity and clastogenicity. When differentiation between these modes of action (MOAs) is necessary, microscopy-based analyses using fluorescent In Situ Hybridization (FISH) or CREST staining have traditionally been employed. More recently, semi-automated in vitro new approach methods (NAMs), which leverage technologies like flow cytometry and high-content imaging, have increasingly been used across sectors due to their higher throughput and faster turnaround times. A SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis was conducted to systematically evaluate the merits and limitations of widely used NAMs in industry, with a focus on the pharmaceutical sector. Data from cultured mammalian cells exposed to reference aneugens (colchicine, taxol, and AMG900) and DNA-reactive clastogens (mitomycin C and methyl methanesulfonate) across methodologies are presented to illustrate the process of distinguishing aneugens from clastogens for the different techniques described herein. Collectively, these analyses highlight the capabilities of NAMs to distinguish aneugens from clastogens. The newer, high information content, semi-automated approaches were considered preferable to traditional microscopy-based FISH and CREST techniques as they provide insight into molecular mechanisms of aneugenicity and help optimize the design of future in vivo genotoxicity studies to facilitate deriving points of departure which may contribute to margin of exposure estimates.

Indexed as

AneugensMutagensAnimalsFlow CytometryHumansIn Situ Hybridization, FluorescenceMicronucleus TestsMutagenicity TestsAneugensMutagensaneugenCRESTFISHflow cytometrygenotoxicityimage analysismicronucleus positivemitotic kinase inhibitiontubulin binding

Identifiers

PMID40682297
PMCPMC12616774

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.