Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41273687›Full record

ReviewMethods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.)2026

Comparative Genomic Hybridization (CGH) in Genotoxicology: From the Basics to Modern Approaches.

Numrah Nisar, Adi Baumgartner

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.), 2026. 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

2 authors.

Numrah NisarYork St John University, School of Health Sciences, Biomedical Science, Lord Mayor's Walk, York, UK.
Adi BaumgartnerYork St John University, School of Health Sciences, Biomedical Science, Lord Mayor's Walk, York, UK. a.baumgartner@yorksj.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over the past two decades, comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) and array CGH have become essential tools in clinical diagnostics, oncology, and toxicological risk assessment. Initially developed to identify chromosomal imbalances like copy number variations (CNVs) in tumor cells, these technologies have expanded into genotoxicology and toxicogenomics, exploring gene responses to toxic agents and their molecular mechanisms. As of 2024, new developments include integrating array CGH with next-generation sequencing (NGS), machine learning, and CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing, greatly improving precision. High-density CGH arrays now offer single-cell resolution, enabling the detection of cellular heterogeneity in toxic responses, while long-read sequencing facilitates the identification of complex genomic rearrangements. Recent innovations include combining CGH and toxicogenomics with organ-on-chip models for real-time, tissue-specific toxicological assessment. This has significantly improved the relevance of toxicological data for human health. However, while these advances are promising, array CGH remains costly and requires substantial data processing, driving the need for advanced bioinformatics tools. AI-driven predictive toxicology models are also gaining traction, correlating toxicogenomic profiles with clinical outcomes. Despite these advancements, the field still faces challenges, such as evolving regulatory guidelines and complex data interpretation, which hinder broader adoption and the full realization of CGH's potential in toxicology and risk assessment.

Indexed as

Comparative Genomic HybridizationToxicogeneticsAnimalsDNA Copy Number VariationsGene EditingGenomicsHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansMachine LearningMutagenicity TestsArray CGHCGHComparative genomic hybridizationGenomic imbalancesGenotoxicologyMicroarrayToxicogenomics

Identifiers

PMID41273687

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.