Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32882414›Full record

ArticleComparative biochemistry and physiology. Toxicology & pharmacology : CBP2021

Cryptic speciation and blurred species boundaries of the earthworm: A challenge for soil-based toxicological risk assessments.

Andreas Katsiamides, Stephen R Stürzenbaum

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Comparative biochemistry and physiology. Toxicology & pharmacology : CBP, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Andreas KatsiamidesDepartment of Analytical, Environmental & Forensic Sciences, School of Population Health & Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, King's College London, London, UK.
Stephen R StürzenbaumDepartment of Analytical, Environmental & Forensic Sciences, School of Population Health & Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, King's College London, London, UK. Electronic address: stephen.sturzenbaum@kcl.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The toxicological risk assessment of chemicals is largely based on the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) guidelines. These internationally approved methodologies help shape policy and political strategy of environment and human health issues. Risk assessments which pertain to soil biota 'recruit' sentinel organisms, including the earthworm Eisenia fetida. Despite E. fetida being morphologically similar to Dendrobaena veneta, they are characterized by a several-fold difference in sensitivity to xenobiotics. Worms, sold as either as pure E. fetida stocks or E. fetida/D. veneta mixed cultures, were obtained from five commercial suppliers. The species identity of 25 earthworms was determined by sequencing the cytochrome c oxidase subunit 2 (COII). We revealed that only one of 25 worms was E. fetida, the remaining worms were all identified as D. veneta. This underlines the notion that E. fetida and D. veneta are easily mis-identified. The occurrence of cryptic speciation combined with the well-documented species-specific variation in toxicological responses highlights the pressing need to accurately classify earthworms to species level prior to any toxicological research. Only this will ensure the validity and reliability of risk assessments.

Indexed as

Models, AnimalAnimalsEcotoxicologyOligochaetaRisk AssessmentSoilSoil PollutantsSpecies SpecificityToxicity TestsSoilSoil PollutantsCryptic speciationDendrobaena venetaEarthwormEisenia fetidaOECD test

Identifiers

PMID32882414
PMCPMC7670304

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.