Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41536439›Full record

ArticleNAM journal2025

HepaRG

Leslie Recio, Nimisha Bhatarri, Raymond Samuel, Jamie Scaglione

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NAM journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

4 authors.

Leslie RecioScitovation, 6 Davis Dr, Durham NC 27709, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4392-6412
Nimisha BhatarriScitovation, 6 Davis Dr, Durham NC 27709, USA.
Raymond SamuelScitovation, 6 Davis Dr, Durham NC 27709, USA.
Jamie ScaglioneScitovation, 6 Davis Dr, Durham NC 27709, USA.

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
NIEHS NIH HHS R44 ES035336
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A significant limitation of the currently validated cell lines used in regulatory genetic toxicology is that these cells lines do not express key xenobiotic metabolizing Phase I and Phase II enzymes. Metabolically competent human HepaRG cells are emerging as human centric genetic toxicology New Approach Methodology cell-based test system for use as a follow up to positive response observed in the regulatory genetic toxicology test battery. Multiple endpoint genetic toxicology assessment in HepaRG cells quantifying the identical in vivo regulatory genotoxicity endpoints integrated with mechanistic transcriptomicshave the potential to reduce reliance on rodent testing to assess the impact of xenobiotics on genome integrity and human relevance. In this study, three direct acting genotoxic compounds that cause chromosomal damage by either DNA adducts ethyl methanesulfonate, cisplatin) or by effecting topoisomerases (etoposide) were positive.Two of three genotoxic compounds that require bioactivation by either CYP1A1 (benzo(a)pyrene) and the most common human CYP450 involved in drug metabolism CYP3A4 (cyclophosphamide, aflatoxin B1) were positive, howeveraflatoxin B1 was cytotoxic but did not induce MN. Two compounds (d-limonene and urea) were negative using the top dose criteria outlined in OECD 487 to assess if cytotoxicity would lead to non-specific genotoxic responses. These data and others indicate that the HepaRG cell MN assay cells meet OECD acceptance criteria and can serve as a genetic toxicology NAM aimed at reducing and replacing reliance on rodent based testing as the only follow up bioassays to positive results from the in vitro genetic toxicology bioassays.

Indexed as

GenotoxicityHepaRG cellsMicronucleusNew approach methodology

Identifiers

PMID41536439
PMCPMC12797121

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.