ArticleEcotoxicology (London, England)2020
In vivo assessment of pathogens toxicity on Daphnia magna using fluorescent dye staining.
Article in Ecotoxicology (London, England), 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- AnEnvironmental science & technology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Daphnia has been widely used as an indicator species in aquatic biomonitoring for decades. Traditional toxicity assays based on lethality take a long time to assess, and the effect mode of contaminants is not clear. Because of the translucency of the Daphnia body and the application of fluorescent probes in cell staining, different intoxicated parts can be visualized. In this study, a double-staining method using two fluorescent dyes, Calcein AM (cell-permeant dye) and Propidium Iodide (cell-impermeant dye), was carried out on Daphnia magna exposed to six pathogens: Salmonella spp. (four strains) and Shigella spp. (two strains). The results showed that those bacteria caused different infections on daphnia depending on the age of this organism and bacterial concentrations. In detail, S. dublin and S. sonnei are the most harmful to Daphnia when they cause damage at smaller concentrations at the younger stage (3 weeks old). Interestingly, older Daphnia can give responses to nearly 10 CFU/ml to less than 100 CFU/ml of some bacteria strains. In another experiment, S. sonnei disturbed Daphnia after just 10 min of exposure, and Daphnia adapted to S. choleraesuis, S. typhi, and S. flexneri at the early stage (3 weeks old) after 1 h of exposure. Moreover, the damaged areas of the daphnia body were directly observed via a microscope, contributing to the understanding and the prediction of toxicity mechanisms.
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.