Impact of sampling time on the detection of mutations in rapidly proliferating tissues using transgenic rodent gene mutation models: A review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The OECD Test Guideline 488 (TG 488) for the Transgenic Rodent Gene Mutation Assay has undergone several revisions to update the recommended design for studying mutations in somatic tissues and male germ cells. The recently revised TG recommends a single sampling time of 28 days following 28 days of exposure (i.e., 28 + 28 days) for all tissues, irrespective of proliferation rates. An alternative design (i.e., 28 + 3 days) is appropriate when germ cell data is not required, nor considered. While the 28 + 28 days design is clearly preferable for slowly proliferating somatic tissues and germ cells, there is still uncertainty about the impact of extending the sampling time to 28 days for rapidly somatic tissues. Here, we searched the available literature for evidence supporting the applicability and utility of the 28 + 28 days design for rapidly proliferating tissues. A total of 79 tests were identified. When directly comparing results from both designs in the same study, there was no evidence that the 28 + 28 days regimen resulted in a qualitatively different outcome from the 28 + 3 days design. Studies with a diverse range of agents that employed only a 28 + 28 days protocol provide further evidence that this design is appropriate for rapidly proliferating tissues. Benchmark dose analyses demonstrate high quantitative concordance between the 28 + 3 and 28 + 28 days designs for rapidly proliferating tissues. Accordingly, our review confirms that the 28 + 28 days design is appropriate to assess mutagenicity in both slowly and rapidly proliferating somatic tissues, and germ cells, and provides further support for the recommended design in the recently adopted TG 488.
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) | 0.001 | 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".