The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Review of genotoxicity studies of glyphosate and glyphosate-based formulations
Abstract
An earlier review of the toxicity of glyphosate and the original Roundup™-branded formulation concluded that neither glyphosate nor the formulation poses a risk for the production of heritable/somatic mutations in humans. The present review of subsequent genotoxicity publications and regulatory studies of glyphosate and glyphosate-based formulations (GBFs) incorporates all of the findings into a weight of evidence for genotoxicity. An overwhelming preponderance of negative results in well-conducted bacterial reversion and in vivo mammalian micronucleus and chromosomal aberration assays indicates that glyphosate and typical GBFs are not genotoxic in these core assays. Negative results for in vitro gene mutation and a majority of negative results for chromosomal effect assays in mammalian cells add to the weight of evidence that glyphosate is not typically genotoxic for these endpoints in mammalian systems. Mixed results were observed for micronucleus assays of GBFs in non-mammalian systems. Reports of positive results for DNA damage endpoints indicate that glyphosate and GBFs tend to elicit DNA damage effects at high or toxic dose levels, but the data suggest that this is due to cytotoxicity rather than DNA interaction with GBF activity perhaps associated with the surfactants present in many GBFs. Glyphosate and typical GBFs do not appear to present significant genotoxic risk under normal conditions of human or environmental exposures.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
1 retracted
Williams, G. M., Kroes, R., & Munro, I. C. (2000) · Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology · doi:10.1006/rtph.1999.1371 · Cited by 864
RetractedDisrupting mitochondrial function with surfactants inhibits MA-10 Leydig cell steroidogenesis
Levine, S. L., Han, Z., Liu, J., Farmer, D. R., & Papadopoulos, V. (2007) · Cell Biology and Toxicology · doi:10.1007/s10565-007-9001-6 · Cited by 32
Cited by
Gérard, F. (2016) · Geoderma · doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2015.08.036 · Cited by 592
Meftaul, I. M., Venkateswarlu, K., Dharmarajan, R., Annamalai, P., Asaduzzaman, M., Parven, A., & Megharaj, M. (2020) · Environmental Pollution · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2020.114372 · Cited by 218
Metadata
- Authors
- Kier, L. D., & Kirkland, D. J.
- Venue
- Critical Reviews in Toxicology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2013-03-12
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 283-315
- ISSN
- 0045-6446 (ISSN-L)
- 1040-8444
- 1547-6898
- OpenAlex
- W2098185516
- Cited by
- 158
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 2.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Review of genotoxicity studies of glyphosate and glyphosate-based formulations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3109/10408444.2013.770820
- The paper
- Kier, L. D., & Kirkland, D. J. (2013). Review of genotoxicity studies of glyphosate and glyphosate-based formulations. Critical Reviews in Toxicology. https://doi.org/10.3109/10408444.2013.770820
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.