Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33287439›Full record

ArticleMarine drugs2020

Application of Six Detection Methods for Analysis of Paralytic Shellfish Toxins in Shellfish from Four Regions within Latin America.

Andrew D Turner, Sophie Tarnovius, Robert G Hatfield, Mickael Teixeira-Alves, Maggie Broadwater, Frances Van Dolah, Ernesto Garcia-Mendoza, Dinorah Medina, Maria Salhi, Alejandra B Goya and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Marine drugs, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

14 authors at 5 institutions in 6 countries.

Andrew D TurnerCentre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas), Barrack Road, The Nothe, Weymouth, Dorset DT4 8UB, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1390-0924
Sophie TarnoviusCentre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas), Barrack Road, The Nothe, Weymouth, Dorset DT4 8UB, UK.
Robert G HatfieldCentre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas), Barrack Road, The Nothe, Weymouth, Dorset DT4 8UB, UK.
Mickael Teixeira-AlvesCentre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas), Barrack Road, The Nothe, Weymouth, Dorset DT4 8UB, UK.
Maggie BroadwaterNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science Stressor Detection and Impacts Division, Charleston, SC 29412, USA.
Frances Van DolahNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science Stressor Detection and Impacts Division, Charleston, SC 29412, USA.
Ernesto Garcia-MendozaDepartamento de Oceanografía Biológica, Centro de Investigación Científica y de Educación Superior de Ensenada. Carr. Ens-Tij 3608, Ensenada, Baja California 22860, Mexico.ORCID 0000-0003-1738-7419
Dinorah MedinaDirección Nacional de Recursos Acuáticos, PO Box 1612, Constituyente 1497, Montevideo 11200, Uruguay.
Maria SalhiDirección Nacional de Recursos Acuáticos, PO Box 1612, Constituyente 1497, Montevideo 11200, Uruguay.
Alejandra B GoyaMarine Biotoxin Department, Mar del Plata Regional Laboratory, Agri-food Health and Quality National Service (Senasa), Mar del Plata 7600, Argentina.
Fernanda BarreraLaboratory of Marine Toxins, Institute of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Chile, Santiago 8320000, Chile.
Daniel CarrascoLaboratory of Marine Toxins, Institute of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Chile, Santiago 8320000, Chile.
Ignacio RubilarLaboratory of Marine Toxins, Institute of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Chile, Santiago 8320000, Chile.
Benjamin A Suarez-IslaLaboratory of Marine Toxins, Institute of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Chile, Santiago 8320000, Chile.
Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science · GBUniversity of Chile · CLNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration · USCentro de Investigación Científica y de Educación Superior de Ensenada · MXNational Food Safety and Quality Service · AR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With the move away from use of mouse bioassay (MBA) to test bivalve mollusc shellfish for paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP) toxins, countries around the world are having to adopt non-animal-based alternatives that fulfil ethical and legal requirements. Various assays have been developed which have been subjected to single-laboratory and multi-laboratory validation studies, gaining acceptance as official methods of analysis and approval for use in some countries as official control testing methods. The majority of validation studies conducted to date do not, however, incorporate shellfish species sourced from Latin America. Consequently, this study sought to investigate the performance of five alternative PSP testing methods together with the MBA, comparing the PSP toxin data generated both qualitatively and quantitatively. The methods included a receptor binding assay (RBA), two liquid chromatography with fluorescence detection (LC-FLD) methods including both pre-column and post-column oxidation, liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) and a commercial lateral flow assay (LFA) from Scotia. A total of three hundred and forty-nine shellfish samples from Argentina, Mexico, Chile and Uruguay were assessed. For the majority of samples, qualitative results compared well between methods. Good statistical correlations were demonstrated between the majority of quantitative results, with a notably excellent correlation between the current EU reference method using pre-column oxidation LC-FLD and LC-MS/MS. The LFA showed great potential for qualitative determination of PSP toxins, although the findings of high numbers of false-positive results and two false negatives highlighted that some caution is still needed when interpreting results. This study demonstrated that effective replacement methods are available for countries that no longer wish to use the MBA, but highlighted the importance of comparing toxin data from the replacement method using local shellfish species of concern before implementing new methods in official control testing programs.

Indexed as

AnimalsBiological AssayBivalviaChromatography, High Pressure LiquidFalse Positive ReactionsLatin AmericaMarine ToxinsMiceParalysisReference StandardsReproducibility of ResultsShellfishShellfish PoisoningTandem Mass SpectrometryToxicity TestsMarine ToxinsLC-FLDLC-MS/MSMBAparalytic shellfish poisoning (PSP)RBAtoxin profiles

Identifiers

PMID33287439
PMCPMC7761785
OpenAlexW3113022069

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.