Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16770716›Full record

ReviewJournal of chemical ecology2006

The detoxification limitation hypothesis: where did it come from and where is it going?

Karen J Marsh, Ian R Wallis, Rose L Andrew, William J Foley

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of chemical ecology, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

43 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Large-scale surveys of woodrats (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

Karen J MarshSchool of Botany and Zoology, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT. karen.marsh@anu.edu.au
Ian R Wallis
Rose L Andrew
William J Foley

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The detoxification limitation hypothesis is firmly entrenched in the literature to explain various aspects of the interaction between herbivores and plant toxins. These include explanations for the existence of specialist and generalist herbivores and for the prevalence of each of these. The hypothesis suggests that the ability of mammalian herbivores to eliminate plant secondary metabolites (PSMs) largely determines which plants, and how much, they can eat. The value of the hypothesis is that it provides a clear framework for understanding how plant toxins might limit diet breadth. Thus, it is surprising, given its popularity, that there are few studies that provide experimental support either for or against the detoxification limitation hypothesis. There are two likely reasons for this. First, Freeland and Janzen did not formally propose the hypothesis, although it is implicit in their paper. Second, it is a difficult hypothesis to test, requiring an understanding of the metabolic pathways that lead to toxin elimination. Recent attempts to test the hypothesis appear promising. Results suggest that herbivores can recognize mounting saturation of a detoxification pathway and adjust their feeding accordingly to avoid intoxication. One strategy they use is to ingest a food containing a toxin that is metabolized by a different pathway. This demonstrates that careful selection of food plants is a key to existing in a chemically complex environment. As more studies characterize the detoxification products of PSMs, we will better understand how widespread this phenomenon is.

Indexed as

Inactivation, MetabolicFood PreferencesPlantsToxins, BiologicalToxins, Biological

Identifiers

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.