ArticleEnvironmental science and pollution research international2020
Selection of assay, organism, and approach in biomonitoring significantly affects the evaluation of genotoxic potential in aquatic environments.
Article in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In this study, few different evaluation concepts were used for the assessment of genotoxic potential at the stretch of the Danube River identified as a significant hotspot of pollution originated through the untreated wastewaters. Three sites were chosen: one site upstream of the wastewater outlet in Novi Sad (Serbia), one at the outlet of wastewaters, and one site few kilometer downstream. Ex situ approach comprised prokaryotic SOS/umuC test on Salmonella typhimurium TA1535/pSK1005 and comet assay on human hepatoma cell line (HepG2). In situ approach was based on the active monitoring (cage approach) using freshwater mussels Sinanodonta woodiana and fish Cyprinus carpio. The comet and micronucleus assays were selected for evaluation of DNA damage in mussel haemocytes and fish blood cells. Within the ex situ part of the study, our results indicated that the eukaryotic model system is more sensitive compared to the prokaryotic one. In situ bioassays are recommended for obtaining a better insight into ecosystem status and in the case of our study the complete insight of genotoxic pressure. However, the choice of animals as bioindicators also has a significant impact on the quality of the obtained information. Differential response between fish and mussels was observed at the highly polluted site suggesting possible involvement of additional protective mechanism such as valve closure in mussels.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32535828What 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.