Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19445697›Full record

ArticleBMC ecology2009

Life cycle and population growth rate of Caenorhabditis elegans studied by a new method.

Daniel Muschiol, Fabian Schroeder, Walter Traunspurger

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC ecology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing 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

43 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Quantifying Embryonic Lethality Rate in Caenorhabditis elegans.Journal of visualized experiments : JoVE · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Safety evaluation ofCurrent research in food science · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Biosafety evaluation of etoposide lipid nanomedicines in C. elegans.Drug delivery and translational research · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. ReducedAntioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Anthelmintic potency ofSaudi journal of biological sciences · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Alternative Animal Models of Aging Research.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2021
    Review
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

3 authors.

Daniel MuschiolAnimal Ecology, University Bielefeld, Morgenbreede 45, 33615 Bielefeld, Germany. daniel.muschiol@uni-bielefeld.de
Fabian Schroeder
Walter Traunspurger

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe free-living nematode Caenorhabditis elegans is the predominant model organism in biological research, being used by a huge number of laboratories worldwide. Many researchers have evaluated life-history traits of C. elegans in investigations covering quite different aspects such as ecotoxicology, inbreeding depression and heterosis, dietary restriction/supplement, mutations, and ageing. Such traits include juvenile growth rates, age at sexual maturity, adult body size, age-specific fecundity/mortality, total reproduction, mean and maximum lifespan, and intrinsic population growth rates. However, we found that in life-cycle experiments care is needed regarding protocol design. Here, we test a recently developed method that overcomes some problems associated with traditional cultivation techniques. In this fast and yet precise approach, single individuals are maintained within hanging drops of semi-fluid culture medium, allowing the simultaneous investigation of various life-history traits at any desired degree of accuracy. Here, the life cycles of wild-type C. elegans strains N2 (Bristol, UK) and MY6 (Münster, Germany) were compared at 20 degrees C with 5 x 10(9) Escherichia coli ml-1 as food source.

resultsHigh-resolution life tables and fecundity schedules of the two strains are presented. Though isolated 700 km and 60 years apart from each other, the two strains barely differed in life-cycle parameters. For strain N2 (n = 69), the intrinsic rate of natural increase (r m d(-1)), calculated according to the Lotka equation, was 1.375, the net reproductive rate (R 0) 291, the mean generation time (T) 90 h, and the minimum generation time (T min) 73.0 h. The corresponding values for strain MY6 (n = 72) were r m = 1.460, R0 = 289, T = 84 h, and T min = 67.3 h. Peak egg-laying rates in both strains exceeded 140 eggs d(-1). Juvenile and early adulthood mortality was negligible. Strain N2 lived, on average, for 16.7 d, while strain MY6 died 2 days earlier; however, differences in survivorship curves were statistically non-significant.

conclusionWe found no evidence that adaptation to the laboratory altered the life history traits of C. elegans strain N2. Our results, discussed in the light of earlier studies on C. elegans, demonstrate certain advantages of the hanging drop method in investigations of nematode life cycles. Assuming that its reproducibility is validated in further studies, the method will reduce the inter-laboratory variability of life-history estimates and may ultimately prove to be more convenient than the current standard methods used by C. elegans researchers.

Indexed as

Life Cycle StagesAdaptation, BiologicalAgingAnimalsCaenorhabditis elegansFertilityModels, BiologicalPopulation DynamicsPopulation GrowthTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID19445697
PMCPMC2696410

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.