Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34896671›Full record

ReviewEnvironment international2022

Understanding the dynamics of physiological changes, protein expression, and PFAS in wildlife.

Jacqueline Bangma, T C Guillette, Paige A Bommarito, Carla Ng, Jessica L Reiner, Andrew B Lindstrom, Mark J Strynar

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Environment international, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 101 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Interaction of Perfluorooctanoate and Perfluorohexanoate withLangmuir : the ACS journal of surfaces and colloids · 2025
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Jacqueline BangmaOak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, Oak Ridge, TN, USA. Electronic address: bangma.jacqueline@epa.gov.
T C GuilletteOak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, Oak Ridge, TN, USA.
Paige A BommaritoEpidemiology Branch, Division of Intramural Research, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 111 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Carla NgDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA; Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Jessica L ReinerChemical Sciences Division, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 331 Fort Johnson Rd, Charleston, SC, USA.
Andrew B LindstromCenter for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Mark J StrynarCenter for Environmental Measurement and Modeling, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Environmental Protection Agency · USOak Ridge Associated Universities · USNational Institute of Environmental Health Sciences · USNational Institute of Standards and Technology · USUniversity of Pittsburgh · US

Funding

Intramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) accumulation and elimination in both wildlife and humans is largely attributed to PFAS interactions with proteins, including but not limited to organic anion transporters (OATs), fatty acid binding proteins (FABPs), and serum proteins such as albumin. In wildlife, changes in the biotic and abiotic environment (e.g. salinity, temperature, reproductive stage, and health status) often lead to dynamic and responsive physiological changes that alter the prevalence and location of many proteins, including PFAS-related proteins. Therefore, we hypothesize that if key PFAS-related proteins are impacted as a result of environmentally induced as well as biologically programmed physiological changes (e.g. reproduction), then PFAS that associate with those proteins will also be impacted. Changes in tissue distribution across tissues of PFAS due to these dynamics may have implications for wildlife studies where these chemicals are measured in biological matrices (e.g., serum, feathers, eggs). For example, failure to account for factors contributing to PFAS variability in a tissue may result in exposure misclassification as measured concentrations may not reflect average exposure levels. The goal of this review is to share general information with the PFAS research community on what biotic and abiotic changes might be important to consider when designing and interpreting a biomonitoring or an ecotoxicity based wildlife study. This review will also draw on parallels from the epidemiological discipline to improve study design in wildlife research. Overall, understanding these connections between biotic and abiotic environments, dynamic protein levels, PFAS levels measured in wildlife, and epidemiology serves to strengthen study design and study interpretation and thus strengthen conclusions derived from wildlife studies for years to come.

Indexed as

Alkanesulfonic AcidsFluorocarbonsAnimalsAnimals, WildBiological MonitoringHumansReproductionAlkanesulfonic AcidsFluorocarbonsAbioticBioticPFASProteinsWildlife

Identifiers

PMID34896671
PMCPMC8802192
OpenAlexW4200086124

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.