ArticleEcotoxicology (London, England)2021
Antenna regeneration as an ecotoxicological endpoint in a marine amphipod: a proof of concept using dimethyl sulfoxide and diflubenzuron.
Article in Ecotoxicology (London, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
Abstract
Regeneration is a widely spread process across the animal kingdom, including many species of marine crustaceans. It is strongly linked to hormonal cycles and, therefore, a great endpoint candidate for toxicology studies. We selected the amphipod Parhyale hawaiensis as test organism, already used in ecotoxicological studies and able to regenerate its body appendages. We are proposing a protocol to use the antenna regeneration as a toxicity endpoint. First, we evaluated differences in time of completion of regeneration in males and females after the amputation of one antenna of 6 months old animals. Then we compared the influence of different testing volumes in the regeneration process (100 and 5 mL). We used as testing substances, dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) and diflubenzuron, a chitin synthesis inhibitor. The most suitable protocol consisted of volumes of 5 mL in 12-well microplates, with 1 organism per well, 12 organisms per concentration (1:1 females/males) and test time duration of around 5 weeks. DMSO accelerated regeneration time with a NOEC of 0.06%. Diflubenzuron inhibited the time necessary to its completion with a NOEC of 0.32 μg L
Indexed as
Identifiers
33770306What 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.