ArticleEnvironmental science and pollution research international2013
Screening for potential effects of endocrine-disrupting chemicals in peri-urban creeks and rivers in Melbourne, Australia using mosquitofish and recombinant receptor-reporter gene assays.
Article in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Towards Sustainable Environmental Quality: Priority Research Questions for the Australasian Region of Oceania.Integrated environmental assessment and management · 2019Article
- Feminization and masculinization of western mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis) observed in rivers impacted by municipal wastewaters.Scientific reports · 2016Article
- An assessment of endocrine activity in Australian rivers using chemical and in vitro analyses.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sexually mature male mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki) were collected from various sites around Melbourne in 2009 to evaluate the performance of gonopodial indices as a biomarker for endocrine disruption in Melbourne's waterways. The mosquitofish indices assessed were body length (BL), gonopodial length (GL)/BL ratio, ray 4:6 ratio and the absence or presence of hooks and serrae, and these varied between sites. The study was complemented by measurements of estrogenic, retinoid, thyroid and aryl hydrocarbon (AhR) receptor activities of the water. Male mosquitofish were 16.3-21.5 mm in length, and although there was a statistically significant positive relationship showing that bigger fish had longer gonopodia than small fish (r2 = 0.52, p < 0.001), there were few significant differences in GL/BL ratio of fish between sites. Measured estrogenic activity was mostly in the range 0.1-1.7 ng/L EEQ, with one site having much higher levels (~12 ng/L EEQ). Aryl hydrocarbon (AhR) receptor activity was observed in all water samples (7-180 ng/L βNF EQ), although there was no consistent pattern in the level of AhR activity observed, i.e., 'clean' sites were as likely to return a high AhR activity response as urban or wastewater treatment plant (WWTP)-impacted sites. There was no correlation between measurements of receptor actvity and gonopodial length (GL):BL ratio and BL. We conclude that the mosquitofish gonopodia only fulfills part of the criteria for biomarker selection for screening. The mosquitofish indices assessed were cheap and easy-to-perform procedures; however, there is no baseline data from the selected sites to evaluate whether differences in the morpholical indices observed at a site were a result of natural selection in the population or due to estrogenic exposure.
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.