ArticlePloS one2016
Evaluation of Genotoxic Pressure along the Sava River.
Article in PloS one, 2016. 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, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Temporal variation of biomarkers in common bream Abramis brama (L., 1758) exposed to untreated municipal wastewater in the Danube River in Belgrade, Serbia.Environmental monitoring and assessment · 2021Article
- Selection of assay, organism, and approach in biomonitoring significantly affects the evaluation of genotoxic potential in aquatic environments.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 9 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this study we have performed a comprehensive genotoxicological survey along the 900 rkm of the Sava River. In total, 12 sites were chosen in compliance with the goals of GLOBAQUA project dealing with the effects of multiple stressors on biodiversity and functioning of aquatic ecosystems. The genotoxic potential was assessed using a complex battery of bioassays performed in prokaryotes and aquatic eukaryotes (freshwater fish). Battery comprised evaluation of mutagenicity by SOS/umuC test in Salmonella typhimurium TA1535/pSK1002. The level of DNA damage as a biomarker of exposure (comet assay) and biomarker of effect (micronucleus assay) and the level of oxidative stress as well (Fpg-modified comet assay) was studied in blood cells of bleak and spirlin (Alburnus alburnus/Alburnoides bipunctatus respectively). Result indicated differential sensitivity of applied bioassays in detection of genotoxic pressure. The standard and Fpg-modified comet assay showed higher potential in differentiation of the sites based on genotoxic potential in comparison with micronucleus assay and SOS/umuC test. Our data represent snapshot of the current status of the river which indicates the presence of genotoxic potential along the river which can be traced to the deterioration of quality of the Sava River by communal and industrial wastewaters. The major highlight of the study is that we have provided complex set of data obtained from a single source (homogeneity of analyses for all samples).
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.