MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1839003622 · doi:10.1093/mutage/gev041

Comparison of<i>in vitro</i>and<i>in vivo</i>clastogenic potency based on benchmark dose analysis of flow cytometric micronucleus data

2015· article· en· W1839003622 on OpenAlexaff
Jeffrey C. Bemis, John W. Wills, Steven M. Bryce, Dorothea K. Torous, Stephen D. Dertinger, Wout Slob

Bibliographic record

VenueMutagenesis · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCarcinogens and Genotoxicity Assessment
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
FundersNational Institute of Environmental Health SciencesNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsIn vivoClastogenPotencyIn vitroMicronucleusFlow cytometryPharmacologyIn vitro toxicologyMicronucleus testBiologyToxicologyToxicityImmunologyMedicineInternal medicineGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The application of flow cytometry as a scoring platform for both in vivo and in vitro micronucleus (MN) studies has enabled the efficient generation of high quality datasets suitable for comprehensive assessment of dose-response. Using this information, it is possible to obtain precise estimates of the clastogenic potency of chemicals. We illustrate this by estimating the in vivo and the in vitro potencies of seven model clastogenic agents (melphalan, chlorambucil, thiotepa, 1,3-propane sultone, hydroxyurea, azathioprine and methyl methanesulfonate) by deriving BMDs using freely available BMD software (PROAST). After exposing male rats for 3 days with up to nine dose levels of each individual chemical, peripheral blood samples were collected on Day 4. These chemicals were also evaluated for in vitro MN induction by treating TK6 cells with up to 20 concentrations in quadruplicate. In vitro MN frequencies were determined via flow cytometry using a 96-well plate autosampler. The estimated in vitro and in vivo BMDs were found to correlate to each other. The correlation showed considerable scatter, as may be expected given the complexity of the whole animal model versus the simplicity of the cell culture system. Even so, the existence of the correlation suggests that information on the clastogenic potency of a compound can be derived from either whole animal studies or cell culture-based models of chromosomal damage. We also show that the choice of the benchmark response, i.e. the effect size associated with the BMD, is not essential in establishing the correlation between both systems. Our results support the concept that datasets derived from comprehensive genotoxicity studies can provide quantitative dose-response metrics. Such investigational studies, when supported by additional data, might then contribute directly to product safety investigations, regulatory decision-making and human risk assessment.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations29
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMutagenesisSame topicCarcinogens and Genotoxicity AssessmentFrench-language works237,207