ReviewRegulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP2026
Application of error-corrected sequencing technologies for in vivo regulatory mutagenicity assessment.
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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Maternal age as a driver of genome instability: mechanisms linking aneuploidy, mutagenesis and mitochondrial dysfunction.Archives of toxicology · 2026Review
- Mutagenic and carcinogenic potency determinations for NDMA support the cumulative dose assumption underpinning the less-than-lifetime Threshold of Toxicological Concern.Archives of toxicology · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Type 1 Error Rates in Duplex Sequencing for Mutagenicity Testing Using Vehicle Control Data and Simulation Analyses.Environmental and molecular mutagenesis · 2026Article
- Benzo[b]fluoranthene Induces Mutation Accumulation and Cancer-Relevant Mutational Signatures in Mouse Lung Alongside Steady State Levels of Chromosome Damage in Blood.Environmental and molecular mutagenesis · 2026Article
- Complex versus simpleScience advances · 2026Article
- Benchmark Response Values for Error-Corrected Sequencing Mutagenicity Assessment Technologies.Environmental and molecular mutagenesis · 2026Article
- Detection of mutations: from Ames test to duplex sequencing.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
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
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.