ArticleJournal of applied genetics2012
Chromosome fragility in river buffalo cows exposed to dioxins.
Article in Journal of applied genetics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Identification of Genomic Instability in Cows Infected with BVD Virus.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
- Chromosome Instability in Pony of Esperia Breed Naturally Infected by Intestinal Strongylidae.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022Article
- The Cytogenetics of the Water Buffalo: A Review.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021Review
- Assessment of genome stability in various breeds of cattle.PloS one · 2019Article
- Risk for animal and human health related to the presence of dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs in feed and food.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2018Article
- Heavy Environmental Pressure in Campania and Other Italian Regions: A Short Review of Available Evidence.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fifty river buffalo (Bubalus bubalis, 2n = 50) cows reared in two different provinces of Campania (southern Italy) underwent cytogenetic investigations to ascertain possible differences in their chromosome stability. One group (Caserta province) was under legal sequestration due to the presence in the milk mass of higher mean values of dioxins [21.79 pg/g of fat as sum of polychloro-dibenzo-dioxins (PCDDs), polychloro-dibenzo-furans (PCDFs) and dioxin-like polychlorobiphenyls (DL-PCBs)] than both those permitted (6.0 pg/g of fat as WHO-TEQ) and those (1.3 pg/g of fat as WHO-TEQ) observed in the control group raised in Salerno province. Two types of peripheral blood cell cultures were performed: without (normal cultures for the chromosome abnormality (CA) test: chromatid breaks, chromosome breaks, fragments) and with the addition of BrdU for the sister chromatid exchange (SCE) test). The CA test revealed a significantly (P < 0.01) higher chromosome fragility in the exposed cows compared to the control. Indeed, mean values of CA/cell were 1.26 ± 1.15 in exposed cows and 0.37 ± 0.71 in the control. Mean SCE was higher in exposed cows (8.50 ± 3.35) than that (8.29 ± 3.51) found in the control but the difference was not significant. Comparison within the same group of cows at first (FL) and multiple (ML) lactations revealed significantly (P < 0.01) higher mean values of CA/cell in exposed ML-cows vs FL-cows while no statistical differences were found between ML-cows and FL-cows in the control farm. By contrast, significantly (P < 0.01) higher mean values of SCE were found in both groups of FL-cows versus ML-cows. Comparisons with other previous studied species (sheep and cattle) were also performed.
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.