Integration of Epigenetic Mechanisms into Non-Genotoxic Carcinogenicity Hazard Assessment: Focus on DNA Methylation and Histone Modifications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Epigenetics involves a series of mechanisms that entail histone and DNA covalent modifications and non-coding RNAs, and that collectively contribute to programing cell functions and differentiation. Epigenetic anomalies and DNA mutations are co-drivers of cellular dysfunctions, including carcinogenesis. Alterations of the epigenetic system occur in cancers whether the initial carcinogenic events are from genotoxic (GTxC) or non-genotoxic (NGTxC) carcinogens. NGTxC are not inherently DNA reactive, they do not have a unifying mode of action and as yet there are no regulatory test guidelines addressing mechanisms of NGTxC. To fil this gap, the Test Guideline Programme of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development is developing a framework for an integrated approach for the testing and assessment (IATA) of NGTxC and is considering assays that address key events of cancer hallmarks. Here, with the intent of better understanding the applicability of epigenetic assays in chemical carcinogenicity assessment, we focus on DNA methylation and histone modifications and review: (1) epigenetic mechanisms contributing to carcinogenesis, (2) epigenetic mechanisms altered following exposure to arsenic, nickel, or phenobarbital in order to identify common carcinogen-specific mechanisms, (3) characteristics of a series of epigenetic assay types, and (4) epigenetic assay validation needs in the context of chemical hazard assessment. As a key component of numerous NGTxC mechanisms of action, epigenetic assays included in IATA assay combinations can contribute to improved chemical carcinogen identification for the better protection of public health.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".