ArticleChemical research in toxicology2025
Comparative Chemical Space Analysis of Pesticides and Substances with Genotoxicity Data.
Article in Chemical research in toxicology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A Computational Framework to Evaluate Interactions of BPA and Its Analogs with Human Liver X Receptor-Beta for Health Risk Assessment.Chemical research in toxicology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Experimental genotoxicity data are required for pesticidal and biocidal active substances prior to regulatory approval, while for their metabolites and impurities, in silico predictions are often accepted. Nonetheless, the extent to which these compounds are represented in publicly available genotoxicity databases remains unclear. Herein, we utilize chemical space methods to define the overlap between pesticide substances (active substances, metabolites, and impurities) and activity data for six genotoxicity test types commonly employed in regulatory toxicology: the Ames test, the in vitro mammalian cell gene mutation test, the in vitro micronucleus test, the in vitro chromosomal aberration test, the in vivo micronucleus test, and the in vivo chromosomal aberration test. After merging and performing structure standardization on 18 public pesticide/biocide databases, we identified 4826 unique substances. Within 19 public genotoxicity databases, 19,897 substances had at least one data point in at least one genotoxicity test. The chemical space overlap between the pesticide substances and each genotoxicity set was evaluated by calculating physicochemical descriptors and molecular fingerprints, which were visualized by using dimensionality reduction methods. The chemical space of pesticide substances is well represented by substances with Ames test data and, to varying degrees, by substances with data from the other genotoxicity tests, with particularly low coverage for in vivo chromosomal aberration. The major scaffolds identified in pesticide substances were present in all of the genotoxicity data sets. Compared to pesticide substances, the genotoxicity data sets were enriched in functional groups characteristic of genotoxic compounds, such as annulated rings, but depleted in pesticide-typical structural motifs like halogens. Chemical space methods can assist regulatory toxicologists in understanding regions of pesticide substance chemical space that are well- or poorly characterized by genotoxicity data. This understanding is important for the accurate and targeted use of databases and data-based nontesting methods in line with regulatory requirements.
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.