Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11677184›Full record

ReviewEnvironmental health perspectives2001

The standardized fish bioassay procedure for detecting and culturing actively toxic Pfiesteria, used by two reference laboratories for atlantic and gulf coast states.

J M Burkholder, H G Marshall, H B Glasgow, D W Seaborn, N J Deamer-Melia

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Environmental health perspectives, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Characterization of Pfiesteria ichthyocidal activity.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2005
    Article
  3. Demonstration of toxicity to fish and to mammalian cells by Pfiesteria species: comparison of assay methods and strains.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2005
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. 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

5 authors.

J M BurkholderCenter for Applied Aquatic Ecology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh 27606, USA. joann_burkholder@ncsu.edu
H G Marshall
H B Glasgow
D W Seaborn
N J Deamer-Melia

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the absence of purified standards of toxins from Pfiesteria species, appropriately conducted fish bioassays are the "gold standard" that must be used to detect toxic strains of Pfiesteria spp. from natural estuarine water or sediment samples and to culture actively toxic Pfiesteria. In this article, we describe the standardized steps of our fish bioassay as an abbreviated term for a procedure that includes two sets of trials with fish, following the Henle-Koch postulates modified for toxic rather than infectious agents. This procedure was developed in 1991, and has been refined over more than 12 years of experience in research with toxic Pfiesteria. The steps involve isolating toxic strains of Pfiesteria (or other potentially, as-yet-undetected, toxic Pfiesteria or Pfiesteria-like species) from fish-killing bioassays with natural samples; growing the clones with axenic algal prey; and retesting the isolates in a second set of fish bioassays. The specific environmental conditions used (e.g., temperature, salinity, light, other factors) must remain flexible, given the wide range of conditions from which natural estuarine samples are derived. We present a comparison of information provided for fish culture conditions, reported in international science journals in which such research is routinely published, and we provide information from more than 2,000 fish bioassays with toxic Pfiesteria, along with recommendations for suitable ranges and frequency of monitoring of environmental variables. We present data demonstrating that algal assays, unlike these standardized fish bioassays, should not be used to detect toxic strains of Pfiesteria spp. Finally, we recommend how quality control/assurance can be most rapidly advanced among laboratories engaged in studies that require research-quality isolates of toxic Pfiesteria spp.

Indexed as

AnimalsBiological AssayEnvironmental MonitoringEukaryotaFish DiseasesFishesLaboratoriesPfiesteria piscicidaReference ValuesReproducibility of ResultsToxins, BiologicalToxins, Biological

Identifiers

PMID11677184
PMCPMC1240606

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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 OpenQuestion graph.