An Update on Direct Genotoxicity as a Molecular Mechanism of Ochratoxin A Carcinogenicity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ochratoxin A (OTA) is a naturally occurring chlorophenolic fungal toxin that contaminates a wide range of food products and poses a cancer threat to humans. The mechanism of action (MOA) for OTA renal carcinogenicity is a controversial issue. In 2005, direct genotoxicity (covalent DNA adduct formation) was proposed as a MOA for OTA-mediated carcinogenicity [ Manderville , R. A. ( 2005 ) Chem. Res. Toxicol. 18 , 1091 - 1097 ]. At that time, inconsistent results had been published on OTA genotoxicity/mutagenicity, and conclusive evidence for OTA-mediated DNA adduction had been lacking. In this update, published data from the past 6-7 years are presented that provide new hypotheses for the MOA of OTA-mediated carcinogenicity. While direct genotoxicity remains a controversial issue for OTA, new findings from the Umemura and Nohmi laboratories provide definitive results for the mutagenicity of OTA in the target tissue (outer medulla) of male rat kidney that rules out oxidative DNA damage. These findings, coupled with our own efforts that provide new structural evidence for DNA adduction by OTA, has strengthened the argument for involvement of direct genotoxicity in OTA-mediated renal carcinogenesis. This MOA should be taken into consideration for OTA 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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".