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.
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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Lack of evidence for contact sensitization by Pfiesteria extract.Environmental health perspectives · 2007Article
- Characterization of Pfiesteria ichthyocidal activity.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2005Article
- 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 · 2005Article
- Characterization of ichthyocidal activity of Pfiesteria piscicida: dependence on the dinospore cell density.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2005Article
- Modified serial analysis of gene expression method for construction of gene expression profiles of microbial eukaryotic species.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2004Article
- Characterization of the rRNA locus of Pfiesteria piscicida and development of standard and quantitative PCR-based detection assays targeted to the nontranscribed spacer.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2002Article
- Discovery of the toxic dinoflagellate Pfiesteria in northern European waters.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2002Article
- Emerging areas of research reported during the CDC National Conference on Pfiesteria: from biology to public health.Environmental health perspectives · 2001Article
- Fish bioassay and toxin induction experiments for research on Pfiesteria piscicida and other toxic dinoflagellates: workshop summary.Environmental health perspectives · 2001Article
- Use of molecular probes to assess geographic distribution of Pfiesteria species.Environmental health perspectives · 2001Article
- Field ecology of toxic Pfiesteria complex species and a conservative analysis of their role in estuarine fish kills.Environmental health perspectives · 2001Review
- Species of the toxic Pfiesteria complex, and the importance of functional type in data interpretation.Environmental health perspectives · 2001Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.