Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41213378›Full record

ReviewRegulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP2026

Application of error-corrected sequencing technologies for in vivo regulatory mutagenicity assessment.

Carole L Yauk, Anthony M Lynch, Vasily N Dobrovolsky, Maik Schuler, Stephanie L Smith-Roe, Devon Fitzgerald, Jake Higgins, Naveed Honarvar, Frank Le Curieux, Shoji Matsumura and 7 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Complex versus simpleScience advances · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Detection of mutations: from Ames test to duplex sequencing.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2026
    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

17 authors.

Carole L YaukDepartment of Biology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Anthony M LynchGenetics and Investigative Toxicology, GSK, Stevenage, United Kingdom.
Vasily N DobrovolskyNational Center for Toxicological Research, US Food and Drug Administration, Jefferson, AR, USA.
Maik SchulerPfizer Research, Development and Medical, Groton, CT, USA.
Stephanie L Smith-RoeDivision of Translational Toxicology, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Devon FitzgeraldIndependent Researcher (formerly TwinStrand Biosciences), Seattle, WA, USA.
Jake HigginsIndependent Researcher (formerly TwinStrand Biosciences), Seattle, WA, USA.
Naveed HonarvarBASF SE, Ludwigshafen, Germany.
Frank Le CurieuxEuropean Chemicals Agency, Helsinki, Finland.
Shoji MatsumuraR&D, Safety Science Research, Kao Corporation, Kanagawa, Japan.
Sheroy MinocherhomjiEli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Leslie RecioScitoVation, Durham, NC, USA.
Jesse J SalkDivision of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Kei-Ichi SugiyamaDivision of Genome Safety Science, National Institute of Health Sciences, Kanagawa, Japan.
Takayoshi SuzukiDivision of Genome Safety Science, National Institute of Health Sciences, Kanagawa, Japan.
John W WillsGenetics and Investigative Toxicology, GSK, Stevenage, United Kingdom.
Francesco MarchettiEnvironmental Health Science and Research Bureau, Health Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada. Electronic address: Francesco.marchetti@hc-sc.gc.ca.

Funding

Mutational profiling in human cells as an in vitro alternative to in vivo mutagenicity assessmentsR44ES035336 · NIEHS · SCITOVATION, LLC · PI RECIO, LESLIE · 2023 to 2024
$1.8M
Intramural FDA HHS FD999999NIEHS NIH HHS R44 ES035336
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Error-corrected sequencing (ECS) is a transformative method for in vivo mutagenicity assessment, enabling direct, highly sensitive measurement of mutation frequency and spectrum. ECS addresses key limitations of the transgenic rodent (TGR) assay, including lack of integration into standard toxicity studies, restricted model availability, and limited alignment with the 3R principles. To support regulatory acceptance, an expert workgroup of the International Workshops on Genotoxicity Testing (IWGT) reviewed ECS technologies and developed consensus recommendations for its inclusion into Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) test guidelines. The working group agreed that ECS: produces results that are concordant with validated TGR assays; can be incorporated into standard ≥28-day repeat-dose toxicity studies; and, data interpretation should be based on overall mutation frequency compared with concurrent vehicle controls. The working group emphasized harmonized data reporting aligned with OECD principles and endorsed study designs that enable quantitative risk assessment. Overall, the working group agreed that ECS offers a significant advancement over current mutagenicity assays by enabling the use of diverse models beyond conventional TGR systems described in OECD test guideline 488. The working group fully supports the application of ECS to generate in vivo mutagenicity data for regulatory submissions and recommends its inclusion in future OECD test guidelines.

Indexed as

MutagensSequence Analysis, DNAAnimalsAnimals, Genetically ModifiedHumansMutagenicity TestsOrganisation for Economic Co-Operation and DevelopmentRisk AssessmentMutagensDuplex sequencingHawk-seqHiFi-seqJade-seqMutationPECC sequencingSMM-Seq

Identifiers

PMID41213378
PMCPMC12645987

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.