Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42041034›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental and molecular mutagenesis2026

Benchmark Response Values for Error-Corrected Sequencing Mutagenicity Assessment Technologies.

Saron Mulugeta, Francesco Marchetti, Guangchao Chen, Connie Chen, Raechel Puglisi, Paul A White

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental and molecular mutagenesis, 2026. 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

6 authors.

Saron MulugetaSchool of Computer Science, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Francesco MarchettiEnvironmental Health Science and Research Bureau, Environmental and Radiation Health Sciences Directorate, Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-9435-4867
Guangchao ChenCentre for Prevention, Lifestyle and Health, RIVM (National Institute for Public Health and the Environment), Bilthoven, the Netherlands.
Connie ChenHealth and Environmental Sciences Institute (HESI), Washington, DC, USA.
Raechel PuglisiHealth and Environmental Sciences Institute (HESI), Washington, DC, USA.
Paul A WhiteEnvironmental Health Science and Research Bureau, Environmental and Radiation Health Sciences Directorate, Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-5853-4759

Funding

Burroughs Wellcome Fund 1021737Genomics Research Development InitiativeHealth Canada's Chemicals Management Plan
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Benchmark Dose (BMD) approach is commonly used to determine Point-of-Departure (PoD) values for risk assessment and regulatory decision-making; however, choosing a suitable Benchmark Response (BMR) for continuous endpoints is a challenge. Earlier work established a BMR of 50% for selected in vivo mutagenicity endpoints (i.e., Transgenic Rodent and Pig-a). Error-corrected sequencing (ECS) technologies, such as Duplex Sequencing (DupSeq), Hawk-Seq, PECC-Seq, and PacBio HiFi, have emerged as powerful tools for mutagenicity assessment. This study applied and compared two approaches for defining BMR values for ECS technologies: the Effect Size (ES) theory of Slob (2017), and the one standard deviation approach of Zeller et al. (2017). A dose-response database of ECS studies was compiled to determine technology-specific within-group variance values (var) for BMR determination. Experimental factor influences on var, including species, rodent strain, administration route, application time, tissue type, tissue sampling time, and DNA fragmentation method, were examined; no significant influences were detected. The absence of covariate effects justified using typical, technology-specific var values for BMR determinations. Using these values, technology-specific BMRs were calculated as 27.7% for DupSeq, 16.6% for Hawk-Seq, and 23.3% for PECC-Seq. BMRs derived from negative control values were 22.6 to 28.8% for DupSeq, 5.6 to 13.8% for Hawk-Seq, 28.7 to 31.5% for PECC-Seq, and 9.5 to 22.8% for PacBio HiFi. These findings support adoption of a 30% BMR for in vivo ECS mutagenicity assessment technologies, providing a robust and consistent foundation for future dose-response modeling and human health risk assessment.

Indexed as

MutagensSequence Analysis, DNAAnimalsBenchmarkingDose-Response Relationship, DrugMutagenicity TestsRisk AssessmentMutagensbenchmark doseduplex sequencingeffect sizeHAWK‐seqPacBio HiFiPECC‐seqPROASTrisk assessment

Identifiers

PMID42041034
PMCPMC13112513

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.