Benchmark Response Values for Error-Corrected Sequencing Mutagenicity Assessment Technologies.

IF 2.3 4区 医学 Q3 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Saron Mulugeta, Francesco Marchetti, Guangchao Chen, Connie Chen, Raechel Puglisi, Paul A White
{"title":"Benchmark Response Values for Error-Corrected Sequencing Mutagenicity Assessment Technologies.","authors":"Saron Mulugeta, Francesco Marchetti, Guangchao Chen, Connie Chen, Raechel Puglisi, Paul A White","doi":"10.1002/em.70051","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The Benchmark Dose (BMD) approach is commonly used to determine Point-of-Departure (PoD) values for risk assessment and regulatory decision-making; however, choosing a suitable Benchmark Response (BMR) for continuous endpoints is a challenge. Earlier work established a BMR of 50% for selected in vivo mutagenicity endpoints (i.e., Transgenic Rodent and Pig-a). Error-corrected sequencing (ECS) technologies, such as Duplex Sequencing (DupSeq), Hawk-Seq, PECC-Seq, and PacBio HiFi, have emerged as powerful tools for mutagenicity assessment. This study applied and compared two approaches for defining BMR values for ECS technologies: the Effect Size (ES) theory of Slob (2017), and the one standard deviation approach of Zeller et al. (2017). A dose-response database of ECS studies was compiled to determine technology-specific within-group variance values (var) for BMR determination. Experimental factor influences on var, including species, rodent strain, administration route, application time, tissue type, tissue sampling time, and DNA fragmentation method, were examined; no significant influences were detected. The absence of covariate effects justified using typical, technology-specific var values for BMR determinations. Using these values, technology-specific BMRs were calculated as 27.7% for DupSeq, 16.6% for Hawk-Seq, and 23.3% for PECC-Seq. BMRs derived from negative control values were 22.6 to 28.8% for DupSeq, 5.6 to 13.8% for Hawk-Seq, 28.7 to 31.5% for PECC-Seq, and 9.5 to 22.8% for PacBio HiFi. These findings support adoption of a 30% BMR for in vivo ECS mutagenicity assessment technologies, providing a robust and consistent foundation for future dose-response modeling and human health risk assessment.</p>","PeriodicalId":11791,"journal":{"name":"Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis","volume":"67 4","pages":"e70051"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13112513/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/em.70051","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Benchmark Dose (BMD) approach is commonly used to determine Point-of-Departure (PoD) values for risk assessment and regulatory decision-making; however, choosing a suitable Benchmark Response (BMR) for continuous endpoints is a challenge. Earlier work established a BMR of 50% for selected in vivo mutagenicity endpoints (i.e., Transgenic Rodent and Pig-a). Error-corrected sequencing (ECS) technologies, such as Duplex Sequencing (DupSeq), Hawk-Seq, PECC-Seq, and PacBio HiFi, have emerged as powerful tools for mutagenicity assessment. This study applied and compared two approaches for defining BMR values for ECS technologies: the Effect Size (ES) theory of Slob (2017), and the one standard deviation approach of Zeller et al. (2017). A dose-response database of ECS studies was compiled to determine technology-specific within-group variance values (var) for BMR determination. Experimental factor influences on var, including species, rodent strain, administration route, application time, tissue type, tissue sampling time, and DNA fragmentation method, were examined; no significant influences were detected. The absence of covariate effects justified using typical, technology-specific var values for BMR determinations. Using these values, technology-specific BMRs were calculated as 27.7% for DupSeq, 16.6% for Hawk-Seq, and 23.3% for PECC-Seq. BMRs derived from negative control values were 22.6 to 28.8% for DupSeq, 5.6 to 13.8% for Hawk-Seq, 28.7 to 31.5% for PECC-Seq, and 9.5 to 22.8% for PacBio HiFi. These findings support adoption of a 30% BMR for in vivo ECS mutagenicity assessment technologies, providing a robust and consistent foundation for future dose-response modeling and human health risk assessment.

错误校正测序致突变性评估技术的基准响应值。
基准剂量(BMD)方法通常用于确定风险评估和监管决策的起点(PoD)值;然而,为连续端点选择合适的基准响应(BMR)是一个挑战。早期的工作确定了在选定的体内诱变终点(即转基因啮齿动物和猪-a)的BMR为50%。错误校正测序(ECS)技术,如双工测序(DupSeq)、Hawk-Seq、PECC-Seq和PacBio HiFi,已经成为评估突变性的有力工具。本研究应用并比较了两种定义ECS技术BMR值的方法:Slob(2017)的效应大小(ES)理论和Zeller等人(2017)的一标准差方法。编制了ECS研究的剂量-反应数据库,以确定用于测定BMR的技术特异性组内方差值(var)。考察了影响var的实验因素,包括鼠种、鼠种、给药途径、施药时间、组织类型、组织取样时间和DNA片段化方法;没有发现明显的影响。使用典型的、特定于技术的var值来确定BMR,证明协变量效应的缺失是合理的。使用这些值,计算出DupSeq的技术特异性bmr为27.7%,Hawk-Seq为16.6%,PECC-Seq为23.3%。阴性对照的bmr分别为:DupSeq为22.6 ~ 28.8%,Hawk-Seq为5.6 ~ 13.8%,PECC-Seq为28.7 ~ 31.5%,PacBio HiFi为9.5 ~ 22.8%。这些发现支持采用30% BMR进行体内ECS致突变性评估技术,为未来的剂量-反应建模和人类健康风险评估提供了坚实和一致的基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
10.70%
发文量
52
审稿时长
12-24 weeks
期刊介绍: Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis publishes original research manuscripts, reviews and commentaries on topics related to six general areas, with an emphasis on subject matter most suited for the readership of EMM as outlined below. The journal is intended for investigators in fields such as molecular biology, biochemistry, microbiology, genetics and epigenetics, genomics and epigenomics, cancer research, neurobiology, heritable mutation, radiation biology, toxicology, and molecular & environmental epidemiology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书