Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39757731›Full record

ReviewEnvironmental and molecular mutagenesis2025

Consensus findings of an International Workshops on Genotoxicity Testing workshop on using transcriptomic biomarkers to predict genotoxicity.

Roland Froetschl, J Christopher Corton, Henghong Li, Jiri Aubrecht, Scott S Auerbach, Florian Caiment, Tatyana Y Doktorova, Yurika Fujita, Danyel Jennen, Naoki Koyama and 5 more

Abstract readConsensus StatementReview
In one paragraph

Review in Environmental and molecular mutagenesis, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. TGx-DDI (toxicogenomic DNA damage-inducing) biomarker validation: multi-site ring trial supporting regulatory use.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2025
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Transferability and Reproducibility of the HepaRG CometChip Assay.Environmental and molecular mutagenesis · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Roland FroetschlFederal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices, Bonn, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-8721-7509
J Christopher CortonCenter for Computational Toxicology and Exposure, US Environmental Protection Agency, Durham, North Carolina, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6197-2036
Henghong LiDepartment of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA.
Jiri AubrechtDepartment of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA.
Scott S AuerbachDivision of the Translational Toxicology, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), Research Triangle Park, Durham, North Carolina, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6294-3069
Florian CaimentDepartment of Translational Genomics, GROW Research Institute for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Tatyana Y DoktorovaF. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Roche Pharma Research and Early Development, Basel, Switzerland.
Yurika FujitaInstitute for Protein Research, Osaka University, Osaka, Japan.
Danyel JennenDepartment of Translational Genomics, GROW Research Institute for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Naoki KoyamaTranslational Research Division, Safety and Bioscience Research Department, Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Yokohama, Kanagawa, Japan.
Matthew J MeierEnvironmental Health, Science and Research Bureau, Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-8199-8754
Roman MezencevCenter for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, US EPA, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.
Leslie RecioScitoVation, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Takayoshi SuzukiDivision of Genome Safety Science, National Institute of Health Sciences, Kawasaki, Kanagawa, Japan.
Carole L YaukDepartment of Biology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

Canada Research Chairs Program CRC-2020-00060Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure, US Environmental Protection AgencyHealth Canada's Genomics Research and Development InitiativeNIEHS NIH HHS
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Gene expression biomarkers have the potential to identify genotoxic and non-genotoxic carcinogens, providing opportunities for integrated testing and reducing animal use. In August 2022, an International Workshops on Genotoxicity Testing (IWGT) workshop was held to critically review current methods to identify genotoxicants using transcriptomic profiling. Here, we summarize the findings of the workgroup on the state of the science regarding the use of transcriptomic biomarkers to identify genotoxic chemicals in vitro and in vivo. A total of 1341 papers were examined to identify the biomarkers that show the most promise for identifying genotoxicants. This analysis revealed two independently derived in vivo biomarkers and three in vitro biomarkers that, when used in conjunction with standard computational techniques, can identify genotoxic chemicals in vivo (rat or mouse liver) or in human cells in culture using different gene expression profiling platforms, with predictive accuracies of ≥92%. These biomarkers have been validated to differing degrees but typically show high reproducibility across transcriptomic platforms and model systems. They offer several advantages for applications in different contexts of use in genotoxicity testing including: early signal detection, moderate-to-high-throughput screening capacity, adaptability to different cell types and tissues, and insights on mechanistic information on DNA-damage response. Workshop participants agreed on consensus statements to advance the regulatory adoption of transcriptomic biomarkers for genotoxicity. The participants agreed that transcriptomic biomarkers have the potential to be used in conjunction with other biomarkers in integrated test strategies in vitro and using short-term rodent exposures to identify genotoxic and non-genotoxic chemicals that may cause cancer and heritable genetic effects. Following are the consensus statements from the workgroup. Transcriptomic biomarkers for genotoxicity can be used in Weight of Evidence (WoE) evaluation to: determine potential genotoxic mechanisms and hazards; identify misleading positives from in vitro genotoxicity assays; serve as new approach methodologies (NAMs) integrated into the standard battery of genotoxicity tests. Several transcriptomic biomarkers have been developed from sufficiently robust training data sets, validated with external test sets, and have demonstrated performance in multiple laboratories. These transcriptomic biomarkers can be used following established study designs and models designated through existing validation exercises in WoE evaluation. Bridging studies using a selection of training and test chemicals are needed to deviate from the established protocols to confirm performance when a transcriptomic biomarker is being applied in other: tissues, cell models, or gene expression platforms. Top dose selection and time of gene expression analysis are critical and should be established during transcriptomic biomarker development. These conditions are the only ones suited for transcriptomic biomarker use unless additional bridging or pharmacokinetic studies are conducted. Temporal effects for genotoxicants that operate via distinct mechanisms should be considered in data interpretation. Fixed transcriptomic biomarker gene sets and analytical processes do not need to be independently rederived in biomarker validation. Validation should focus on the performance of the gene set in external test sets. Robust external testing should ensure a minimum of additional chemicals spanning genotoxic and non-genotoxic modes of action. Genes in the transcriptomic biomarker do not need to be known to be mechanistically involved in genotoxicity responses. Existing frameworks described for NAMs could be applied for validation of transcriptomic biomarkers. Reproducibility of bioinformatic analysis is critical for the regulatory application of transcriptomic biomarkers. A bioinformatics expert should be involved with creating reproducible methods for the qualification and application of each transcriptomic biomarker.

Indexed as

BiomarkersGene Expression ProfilingMutagensTranscriptomeAnimalsDNA DamageHumansMiceMutagenicity TestsBiomarkersMutagensadverse outcome pathwaycontext of usegene expression profilingin vitroin vivotranscriptomics

Identifiers

PMID39757731
PMCPMC12988028

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.