The 28 + 28 day design is an effective sampling time for analyzing mutant frequencies in rapidly proliferating tissues of MutaMouse animals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development Test Guideline 488 (TG 488) uses transgenic rodent models to generate in vivo mutagenesis data for regulatory submission. The recommended design in TG 488, 28 consecutive daily exposures with tissue sampling three days later (28 + 3d), is optimized for rapidly proliferating tissues such as bone marrow (BM). A sampling time of 28 days (28 + 28d) is considered more appropriate for slowly proliferating tissues (e.g., liver) and male germ cells. We evaluated the impact of the sampling time on mutant frequencies (MF) in the BM of MutaMouse males exposed for 28 days to benzo[a]pyrene (BaP), procarbazine (PRC), isopropyl methanesulfonate (iPMS), or triethylenemelamine (TEM) in dose-response studies. BM samples were collected + 3d, + 28d, + 42d or + 70d post exposure and MF quantified using the lacZ assay. All chemicals significantly increased MF with maximum fold increases at 28 + 3d of 162.9, 6.6, 4.7 and 2.8 for BaP, PRC, iPMS and TEM, respectively. MF were relatively stable over the time period investigated, although they were significantly increased only at 28 + 3d and 28 + 28d for TEM. Benchmark dose (BMD) modelling generated overlapping BMD confidence intervals among the four sampling times for each chemical. These results demonstrate that the sampling time does not affect the detection of mutations for strong mutagens. However, for mutagens that produce small increases in MF, sampling times greater than 28 days may produce false-negative results. Thus, the 28 + 28d protocol represents a unifying protocol for simultaneously assessing mutations in rapidly and slowly proliferating somatic tissues and male germ cells.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".