In vitro mammalian cell mutation assays based on transgenic reporters: A report of the International Workshop on Genotoxicity Testing (IWGT)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chemical safety evaluations require assessment of genetic toxicity. Transgenic rodent (TGR) assays permit enumeration of mutations in chromosomally-integrated targets contained in shuttle vectors. In order to improve in vitro mutagenicity assessment, and to substantially reduce animal use, in vitro assays using transgenic reporters have been developed. These assays are based on cells derived from TGRs, or cells transfected with transgenic shuttle vectors containing a mutation target. As part of the 7th International Workshop on Genotoxicity Testing, an In Vitro Mammalian Cell Gene Mutation Assay working group reviewed all published information pertaining to in vitro transgene mutagenicity assays; the utility, advantages and disadvantages of the assays were evaluated and discussed. The review revealed that over 20 TGR-based in vitro assays have been used to assess the mutagenic activity of over 150 agents. Overall, the Working Group considered in vitro transgene mutagenicity assays pragmatic tools for the safety evaluation of new and existing substances. A formal SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) analysis revealed advantages including the use of established scoring protocols, avoidance of laborious clone isolation and enumeration, ability to use metabolically competent primary cells, ability to detect different types of genetic damage, large dynamic range, and complementarity to in vivo TGR endpoints. Disadvantages include lack of validation and little consistency in protocols, the use of specialised reagents, the time and effort required for mutant enumeration, the use of some cell lines that lack metabolic capacity, and the need for multiple assays to cover all mutational mechanisms. Several assays have been partially validated, indicating promising reliability, reproducibility and applicability domain. Once in vitro transgene mutagenicity assays have been more thoroughly validated, they are well placed to augment or replace existing in vitro mammalian cell mutagenicity assays, particularly in cases where the in vivo TGR mutation assay is intended for follow-up.
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 | 0.015 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
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".