Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37406269›Full record

ArticleZebrafish2023

Influence of Methylene Blue or Dimethyl Sulfoxide on Larval Zebrafish Development and Behavior.

Joan M Hedge, Deborah L Hunter, Erik Sanders, Kimberly A Jarema, Jeanene K Olin, Katy N Britton, Morgan Lowery, Bridget R Knapp, Stephanie Padilla, Bridgett N Hill

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Zebrafish, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Bioactivity of the ubiquitous tire preservative 6PPD and degradant, 6PPD-quinone in fish- and mammalian-based assays.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Joan M HedgeOffice of Research and Development, Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure, Biomolecular and Computational Toxicology Division, Advanced Experimental Toxicology Models Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1263-576X
Deborah L HunterOffice of Research and Development, Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure, Biomolecular and Computational Toxicology Division, Rapid Assay Development Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.
Erik SandersAquatics Lab Services, LLC, St. Peters, Missouri, USA.
Kimberly A JaremaOffice of Research and Development, Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Immediate Office, Program Operations Staff, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.
Jeanene K OlinOffice of Research and Development, Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure, Biomolecular and Computational Toxicology Division, Rapid Assay Development Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.
Katy N BrittonORAU Research Participation Program hosted by EPA, Office of Research and Development, Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure, Biomolecular and Computational Toxicology Division, Rapid Assay Development Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.
Morgan LoweryOffice of Research and Development, Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure, Biomolecular and Computational Toxicology Division, Rapid Assay Development Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.
Bridget R KnappORISE Research Participation Program hosted by EPA, Office of Research and Development, Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure, Biomolecular and Computational Toxicology Division, Rapid Assay Development Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.
Stephanie PadillaOffice of Research and Development, Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure, Biomolecular and Computational Toxicology Division, Rapid Assay Development Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.
Bridgett N HillORISE Research Participation Program hosted by EPA, Office of Research and Development, Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure, Biomolecular and Computational Toxicology Division, Rapid Assay Development Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.
Research Triangle Park Foundation · USAquatic Systems (United States) · USEnvironmental Protection Agency · US

Funding

Intramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of larval zebrafish developmental testing and assessment, specifically larval zebrafish locomotor activity, has been recognized as a higher throughput testing strategy to identify developmentally toxic and neurotoxic chemicals. There are, however, no standardized protocols for this type of assay, which could result in confounding variables being overlooked. Two chemicals commonly employed during early-life stage zebrafish assays, methylene blue (antifungal agent) and dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO, a commonly used vehicle) have been reported to affect the morphology and behavior of freshwater fish. In this study, we conducted developmental toxicity (morphology) and neurotoxicity (behavior) assessments of commonly employed concentrations for both chemicals (0.6-10.0 μM methylene blue; 0.3%-1.0% v/v DMSO). A light-dark transition behavioral testing paradigm was applied to morphologically normal, 6 days postfertilization (dpf) zebrafish larvae kept at 26°C. Additionally, an acute DMSO challenge was administered based on early-life stage zebrafish assays typically used in this research area. Results from developmental toxicity screens were similar between both chemicals with no morphological abnormalities detected at any of the concentrations tested. However, neurodevelopmental results were mixed between the two chemicals of interest. Methylene blue resulted in no behavioral changes up to the highest concentration tested, 10.0 μM. By contrast, DMSO altered larval behavior following developmental exposure at concentrations as low as 0.5% (v/v) and exhibited differential concentration-response patterns in the light and dark photoperiods. These results indicate that developmental DMSO exposure can affect larval zebrafish locomotor activity at routinely used concentrations in developmental neurotoxicity assessments, whereas methylene blue does not appear to be developmentally or neurodevelopmentally toxic to larval zebrafish at routinely used concentrations. These results also highlight the importance of understanding the influence of experimental conditions on larval zebrafish locomotor activity that may ultimately confound the interpretation of results.

Indexed as

Dimethyl SulfoxideZebrafishAnimalsBehavior, AnimalLarvaLocomotionMethylene BlueDimethyl SulfoxideMethylene Bluebehaviordevelopmental toxicityDMSOlarvaemethylene bluezebrafish

Identifiers

PMID37406269
PMCPMC10627343
OpenAlexW4383199438

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.