Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40757573›Full record

ArticleMutagenesis2025

Computational prediction of mutagenicity through comprehensive cell painting analysis.

Natacha Cerisier, Emily Truong, Taku Watanabe, Taro Oshiro, Tomohiro Takahashi, Shigeaki Ito, Olivier Taboureau

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Mutagenesis, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Natacha CerisierUniversité Paris Cité, INSERM U1133, Functional and Adaptive Biology Unit, CNRS UMR 8251, 75013 Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0001-8709-4561
Emily TruongUniversité Paris Cité, INSERM U1133, Functional and Adaptive Biology Unit, CNRS UMR 8251, 75013 Paris, France.
Taku WatanabeScientific Product Assessment Center, Japan Tobacco Inc., 6-2, Umegaoka, Aoba-Ku, Yokohama, Kanagawa 227-8512, Japan.
Taro OshiroScientific Product Assessment Center, Japan Tobacco Inc., 6-2, Umegaoka, Aoba-Ku, Yokohama, Kanagawa 227-8512, Japan.
Tomohiro TakahashiScientific Product Assessment Center, Japan Tobacco Inc., 6-2, Umegaoka, Aoba-Ku, Yokohama, Kanagawa 227-8512, Japan.
Shigeaki ItoScientific Product Assessment Center, Japan Tobacco Inc., 6-2, Umegaoka, Aoba-Ku, Yokohama, Kanagawa 227-8512, Japan.
Olivier TaboureauUniversité Paris Cité, INSERM U1133, Functional and Adaptive Biology Unit, CNRS UMR 8251, 75013 Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0001-7081-2491

Funding

ASPISEuropean Union's Horizon 964537
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The mutagenicity of chemical compounds is a key consideration in toxicology, drug development, and environmental safety. Traditional methods such as the Ames test, while reliable, are time-intensive and costly. With advances in imaging and machine learning (ML), high-content assays like cell painting offer new opportunities for predictive toxicology. Cell painting captures extensive morphological features of cells, which can correlate with chemical bioactivity. In this study, we leveraged cell painting data to develop ML models for predicting mutagenicity and compared their performance with structure-based models. We used two datasets: a Broad Institute dataset containing profiles of over 30 000 molecules and a U.S.-Environmental Protection Agency dataset with images of 1200 chemicals tested at multiple concentrations. By integrating these datasets, we aimed to improve the robustness of our models. Among three algorithms tested-Random Forest, Support Vector Machine, and Extreme Gradient Boosting-the third showed the best performance for both datasets. Notably, selecting the most relevant concentration per compound, the phenotypic altering concentration, significantly improved prediction accuracy. Our models outperformed traditional quantitative structure activity relationship (QSAR) tools such as the Virtual models for property Evaluation of chemicals within a Global Architecture (VEGA) and the CompTox Dashboard for the majority of compounds, demonstrating the utility of cell painting features. The cell painting-based models revealed morphological changes related to DNA and RNA perturbation, especially in mitochondria, endoplasmic reticulum and nuclei, aligning with mutagenicity mechanisms. Despite this, certain compounds remained challenging to predict due to inherent dataset limitations and inter-laboratory variability in cell painting technology. The findings highlight the potential of cell painting in mutagenicity prediction, offering a complementary perspective to chemical structure-based models. Future work could involve harmonizing cell painting methodologies across datasets and exploring deep learning techniques to enhance predictive accuracy. Ultimately, integrating cell painting data with QSAR descriptors in hybrid models may unlock novel insights into chemical mutagenicity.

Indexed as

Computational BiologyMutagensAlgorithmsHumansMachine LearningMutagenicity TestsQuantitative Structure-Activity RelationshipSupport Vector MachineMutagenscell paintingchemical risk assessmentmutagenicityQSAR

Identifiers

PMID40757573
PMCPMC12534217

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.