ArticleMutagenesis2020
Pig-a gene mutation assay study design: critical assessment of 3- versus 28-day repeat-dose treatment schedules.
Article in Mutagenesis, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Co-Exposure to Aristolochic Acids I and II Increases DNA Adduct Formation Responsible for Aristolochic Acid I-Mediated Carcinogenicity in Rats.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
The in vivo Pig-a assay is being used in safety studies to evaluate the potential of chemicals to induce somatic cell gene mutations. Ongoing work is aimed at developing an Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) test guideline to support routine use for regulatory purposes (OECD project number 4.93). Among the details that will need to be articulated in an eventual guideline are recommended treatment and harvest schedules. With this in mind, experiments reported herein were performed with Wistar Han rats exposed to aristolochic acid I (AA), 1,3-propane sultone, chlorambucil, thiotepa or melphalan using each of two commonly used treatment schedules: 3 or 28 consecutive days. In the case of the 3-day studies, blood was collected for Pig-a analysis on days 15 or 16 and 29 or 30. For the 28-day studies blood was collected on day 29 or 30. The effect of treatment on mutant reticulocytes and mutant erythrocytes was evaluated with parametric pair-wise tests. While each of the five mutagens increased mutant phenotype cell frequencies irrespective of study design, statistical significance was consistently achieved at lower dose levels when the 28-day format was used (e.g. 2.75 vs 20 mg/kg/bw for AA). To more thoroughly investigate the dose-response relationships, benchmark dose (BMD) analyses were performed with PROAST software. These results corroborate the pair-wise testing results in that lower BMD values were obtained with the 28-day design. Finally, mutagenic potency, as measured by BMD analyses, most consistently correlated with the mutagens' tumorigenic dose 50 values when the lengthier treatment schedule was used. Collectively, these results suggest that both 3- and 28-day treatment schedules have merit in hazard identification-type studies. That being said, for the purpose of regulatory safety assessments, there are clear advantages to study designs that utilise protracted exposures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.