ArticleToxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology2022
Chemical Exposure-Induced Developmental Neurotoxicity in Head-Regenerating Schmidtea mediterranea.
Article in Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advances in ecotoxicological research using planarians: a comprehensive review.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2026Review
- How neurobehavior and brain development in alternative whole-organism models can contribute to prediction of developmental neurotoxicity.Neurotoxicology · 2024Review
- Effect of bisphenol A on the neurological system: a review update.Archives of toxicology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The growing number of commercially used chemicals that are under-evaluated for developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) combined with the difficulty in describing the etiology of exposure-related neurodevelopmental toxicity has created a reticent threat to human health. Current means of screening chemicals for DNT are limited to expensive, time-consuming, and labor-intensive traditional laboratory animal models. In this study, we hypothesize that exposed head-regenerating planarian flatworms can effectively and efficiently categorize DNT in known developmental neurotoxins (ethanol and bisphenol A [BPA]). Planarian flatworms are an established alternative animal model for neurodevelopmental studies and have remarkable regenerative abilities allowing neurodevelopment to be induced via head resection. Here, we observed changes in photophobic behavior and central nervous system (CNS) morphology to evaluate the impact of exposure to low concentrations of ethanol, BPA, and BPA industry alternatives bisphenol F, and bisguaiacol on neurodevelopment. Our studies show that exposure to 1% v/v ethanol during regeneration induces a recoverable 48-h delay in the development of proper CNS integrity, which aligns with behavioral assessments of cognitive ability. Exposure to BPA and its alternatives induced deviations to neurodevelopment in a range of severities, distinguished by suppressions, delays, or a combination of the 2. These results suggest that quick and inexpensive behavioral assessments are a viable surrogate for tedious and costly immunostaining studies, equipping more utility and resolution to the planarian model for neurodevelopmental toxicity in the future of mass chemical screening. These studies demonstrate that behavioral phenotypes observed following chemical exposure are classifiable and also temporally correlated to the anatomical development of the CNS in planaria. This will facilitate and accelerate toxicological screening assays with this alternative animal model.
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.