Understanding the importance of low‐molecular weight (ethylene oxide‐ and propylene oxide‐induced) DNA adducts and mutations in risk assessment: Insights from 15 years of research and collaborative discussions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The interpretation and significance of DNA adduct data, their causal relationship to mutations, and their role in risk assessment have been debated for many years. An extended effort to identify key questions and collect relevant data to address them was focused on the ubiquitous low MW N7-alkyl/hydroxyalkylguanine adducts. Several academic, governmental, and industrial laboratories collaborated to gather new data aimed at better understanding the role and potential impact of these adducts in quantifiable genotoxic events (gene mutations/micronucleus). This review summarizes and evaluates the status of dose-response data for DNA adducts and mutations from recent experimental work with standard mutagenic agents and ethylene oxide and propylene oxide, and the importance for risk assessment. This body of evidence demonstrates that small N7-alkyl/hydroxyalkylguanine adducts are not pro-mutagenic and, therefore, adduct formation alone is not adequate evidence to support a mutagenic mode of action. Quantitative methods for dose-response analysis and derivation of thresholds, benchmark dose (BMD), or other points-of-departure (POD) for genotoxic events are now available. Integration of such analyses of genetox data is necessary to properly assess any role for DNA adducts in risk assessment. Regulatory acceptance and application of these insights remain key challenges that only the regulatory community can address by applying the many learnings from recent research. The necessary tools, such as BMDs and PODs, and the example datasets, are now available and sufficiently mature for use by the regulatory community. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 60: 100-121, 2019. © 2018 The Authors. Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Environmental Mutagen Society.
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 | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".