Flow Cytometric Analysis of Micronuclei in Peripheral Blood Reticulocytes: I. Intra- and Interlaboratory Comparison with Microscopic Scoring
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accumulating evidence suggests that reticulocytes (RETs) in the peripheral blood of rats may represent a suitable cell population for use in the micronucleus assay, despite the ability of the rat spleen to selectively remove micronucleated erythrocytes from the peripheral circulation. To evaluate the analytical performance of a previously described flow cytometric method (Torous et al., 2003, Toxicol. Sci. 74, 309-314) that may allow this assay to be conducted using peripheral blood in lieu of bone marrow sampling, we compared the sensitivity and performance characteristics of the flow cytometric technique with two established microscopy-based scoring methods. Peripheral blood samples from single Sprague-Dawley rats treated for 6 days with either vehicle or cyclophosphamide were prepared in replicate for scoring by the three methods at different laboratories. These blood-based measurements were compared to those derived from bone marrow specimens from the same animals, stained with acridine orange, and scored by microscopy. Through the analysis of replicate specimens, inter- and intralaboratory variability were evaluated for each method. Scoring reproducibility over time was also evaluated. These data support the premise that rat RETs harvested from peripheral blood are a suitable cell population to assess genotoxicant-induced micronucleus formation. The interlaboratory comparison provides evidence of the general robustness of the micronucleus endpoint using different analytical approaches. Furthermore, data presented herein demonstrate a clear advantage of flow cytometry-based scoring over microscopy-significantly lower inter- and intralaboratory variation and higher statistical sensitivity.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".