Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23179410›Full record

ArticleEcotoxicology (London, England)2013

Hormesis on life-history traits: is there such thing as a free lunch?

Tjalling Jager, Alpar Barsi, Virginie Ducrot

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Ecotoxicology (London, England), 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing 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

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Polyethylene microplastic toxicity to the terrestrial snail Cantareus aspersus: size matters.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2022
    Article
  9. The conserved and highFrontiers in plant science · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Fipronil pesticide as a suspect in historical mass mortalities of honey bees.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2018
    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

3 authors.

Tjalling JagerDepartment of Theoretical Biology, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. tjalling.jager@vu.nl
Alpar Barsi
Virginie Ducrot

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The term "hormesis" is used to describe dose-response relationships where the response is reversed between low and high doses of a stressor (generally, stimulation at low doses and inhibition at high ones). A mechanistic explanation is needed to interpret the relevance of such responses, but there does not appear to be a single universal mechanism underlying hormesis. When the endpoint is a life-history trait such as growth or reproduction, a stimulation of the response comes with costs in terms of resources. Organisms have to obey the conservation laws for mass and energy; there is no such thing as a free lunch. Based on the principles of Dynamic Energy Budget theory, we introduce three categories of explanations for hormesis that obey the conservation laws: acquisition (i.e., increasing the input of energy into the individual), allocation (i.e., rearranging the energy flows over various traits) and medication (e.g., the stressor is an essential element or acts as a cure for a disease or infection). In this discussion paper, we illustrate these explanations with cases where they might apply, and elaborate on the potential consequences for field populations.

Indexed as

HormesisAge FactorsAgingAnimalsEcotoxicologyEnergy MetabolismGrowthHumansModels, BiologicalPopulation DensityReproductionTime Factors

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.