ArticleEnvironmental and molecular mutagenesis2025
Transferability and Reproducibility of the HepaRG CometChip Assay.
Article 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 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating the Suitability of HepaRG Cells for Regulatory Micronucleus Testing: Comparing Results for a Diverse Set of 28 Chemicals to Regulatory Accepted TK6 Cells.Environmental and molecular mutagenesis · 2026Article
- New Approach Methods in Genetic Toxicology.Environmental and molecular mutagenesis · 2026Article
- Transferability and Reproducibility of the HepaRG CometChip Assay.Environmental and molecular mutagenesis · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This interlaboratory evaluation of HepaRG CometChip was conducted to assess transferability and reproducibility of this new approach methodology (NAM) across four laboratories. Concentrations inducing up to ~70% relative cytotoxicity were determined by the organizing laboratory, and frozen chemical formulation blocks were sent to each participant. When noncytotoxic, 10 mM was the maximum dose. Cultures were exposed once daily for three consecutive days, and both cytotoxicity assessment, via ATP quantification, and comet analysis, commenced 3-4 h after initiation of the final exposure. Positive response was statistical pairwise significance (p < 0.05) with concentration-related increases in %Tail DNA across ≥ 2 consecutive exposures. For 8 of 11 compounds, all four labs generated unanimous test results, with four negative compounds (2-acetylaminofluorene [2-AAF], 2,4-dichlorophenol, eugenol and hydroquinone) and four positive compounds (azidothymidine, benzo(a)pyrene [BP], cyclophosphamide [CP], ethyl methanesulfonate).For the remaining chemicals, three of four labs generated negative calls for amitrole, cadmium chloride, and DMBA. In cases where bulky lesions were anticipated, the magnitude of %Tail DNA was low, due to the inherent insensitivity of the alkaline comet assay (not the CometChip per se) to detect bulky adducts repaired by nucleotide excision repair. This is supported by the small magnitude in %Tail DNA induced by BP and CP. Taken together, for all compounds there was majority agreement in CometChip results across participating laboratories supporting that the endpoint is readily transferable to new labs. Overall, this platform is a promising human-relevant NAM, with a physiologically relevant detoxification process that could be incorporated into rodent replacement strategies.
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.