ArticleEnvironmental and molecular mutagenesis2026
Evaluation of Type 1 Error Rates in Duplex Sequencing for Mutagenicity Testing Using Vehicle Control Data and Simulation Analyses.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accurate mutation detection and quantification are crucial for understanding mutagenesis and its potential health implications. Traditional in vivo mutagenicity assays, such as the transgenic rodent gene mutation assay, are limited by their focus on single reporter genes and inability to efficiently generate mutation spectra. Error-corrected sequencing (ECS) technologies like Duplex Sequencing (DS) offer significant advantages, including extremely low error rates and the ability to measure mutation frequencies (MFs) across various tissues and model organisms. Before ECS approaches can be adopted for regulatory purposes, their performance characteristics, particularly the type 1 error rate, must be rigorously established. We evaluated the type 1 error rate of DS through empirical analysis of vehicle control data and complementary simulation studies. Using 138 control mouse liver samples from 28 studies analyzed with the TwinStrand Mouse Mutagenesis Panel, we performed variance component analysis and found that experiment-level variability exceeds within-experiment sample variability. To evaluate the impact of between-study heterogeneity, we simulated overdispersed binomial data informed by the observed variance components. Removing the most variable studies reduced overdispersion and improved control of the type 1 error rate. Our findings demonstrate that DS maintains appropriate type 1 error rates (~0.05) when study heterogeneity is limited and at least four samples per group are used. Under greater overdispersion, sample sizes of five or six per group may be needed to achieve comparable control of the type 1 error rate. These results underscore the importance of combining empirical and simulation-based approaches to evaluate and optimize the statistical performance of emerging genomic technologies.
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.