A comparison of the lowest effective concentration in culture media for detection of chromosomal damage in vitro and in blood or plasma for detection of micronuclei in vivo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is often assumed that genotoxic substances will be detected more easily by using in vitro rather than in vivo genotoxicity tests since higher concentrations, more cytotoxicity and static exposures can be achieved. However, there is a paucity of data demonstrating whether genotoxic substances are detected at lower concentrations in cell culture in vitro than can be reached in the blood of animals treated in vivo. To investigate this issue, we compared the lowest concentration required for induction of chromosomal damage in vitro (lowest observed effective concentration, or LOEC) with the concentration of the test substance in blood at the lowest dose required for biologically relevant induction of micronuclei in vivo (lowest observed effective dose, or LOED). In total, 83 substances were found for which the LOED could be identified or estimated, where concentrations in blood and micronucleus data were available via the same route of administration in the same species, and in vitro chromosomal damage data were available. 39.8 % of substances were positive in vivo at blood concentrations that were lower than the LOEC in vitro, 22.9 % were positive at similar concentrations, and 37.3 % of substances were positive in vivo at higher concentrations. Distribution analysis showed a very wide scatter of > 6 orders of magnitude across these 3 categories. When mode of action was evaluated, the distribution of clastogens and aneugens across the 3 categories was very similar. Thus, the ability to detect induction of micronuclei in bone marrow in vivo regardless of the mechanism for micronucleus induction, is clearly not solely determined by the concentration of test substance which induced chromosomal damage in vitro.
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".