Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38531109›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied toxicology : JAT2024

Evaluating potential developmental toxicity of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances in Xenopus laevis embryos and larvae.

Sigmund J Degitz, Philip P Degoey, Jonathan T Haselman, Jennifer H Olker, Emma H Stacy, Chad Blanksma, Scott Meyer, Kali Z Mattingly, Brett Blackwell, Anne S Opseth and 1 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of applied toxicology : JAT, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sigmund J DegitzUS Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure (CCTE), Great Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division (GLTED), Duluth, Minnesota, USA.ORCID 0009-0009-3254-572X
Philip P DegoeyUS Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure (CCTE), Great Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division (GLTED), Duluth, Minnesota, USA.
Jonathan T HaselmanUS Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure (CCTE), Great Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division (GLTED), Duluth, Minnesota, USA.
Jennifer H OlkerUS Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure (CCTE), Great Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division (GLTED), Duluth, Minnesota, USA.
Emma H StacyUS Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure (CCTE), Great Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division (GLTED), Duluth, Minnesota, USA.
Chad BlanksmaSpecPro Professional Services, c/o US EPA, Great Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division, Duluth, Minnesota, USA.ORCID 0009-0001-8811-8083
Scott MeyerUS Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure (CCTE), Great Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division (GLTED), Duluth, Minnesota, USA.
Kali Z MattinglySpecPro Professional Services, c/o US EPA, Great Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division, Duluth, Minnesota, USA.
Brett BlackwellUS Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure (CCTE), Great Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division (GLTED), Duluth, Minnesota, USA.
Anne S OpsethUS Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure (CCTE), Great Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division (GLTED), Duluth, Minnesota, USA.
Michael W HornungUS Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure (CCTE), Great Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division (GLTED), Duluth, Minnesota, USA.
Environmental Protection Agency · US

Funding

Intramural EPA EPA999999US Environmental Protection Agency
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As part of the US Environmental Protection Agency's perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) Action Plan, the agency is committed to increasing our understanding of the potential ecological effects of PFAS. The objective of these studies was to examine the developmental toxicity of PFAS using the laboratory model amphibian species Xenopus laevis. We had two primary aims: (1) to understand the developmental toxicity of a structurally diverse set of PFAS compounds in developing embryos and (2) to characterize the potential impacts of perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), and hexafluoropropylene oxide-dimer acid (HFPO-DA a.k.a. GenX), on growth and thyroid hormone-controlled metamorphosis. We employed a combination of static renewal and flow-through exposure designs. Embryos were exposed to 17 structurally diverse PFAS starting at the midblastula stage through the completion of organogenesis (96 h). To investigate impacts on PFOS, PFOA, PFHxS, and HFPO-DA on development and metamorphosis, larvae were exposed from premetamorphosis (Nieuwkoop Faber stage 51 or 54) through pro metamorphosis. Of the PFAS tested in embryos, only 1H,1H,10H,10H-perfluorodecane-1,10-diol (FC10-diol) and perfluorohexanesulfonamide (FHxSA) exposure resulted in clear concentration-dependent developmental toxicity. For both of these PFAS, a significant increase in mortality was observed at 2.5 and 5 mg/L. For FC10-diol, 100% of the surviving embryos were malformed at 1.25 and 2.5 mg/L, while for FHxSA, a significant increase in malformations (100%) was observed at 2.5 and 5 mg/L. Developmental stage achieved was the most sensitive endpoint with significant effects observed at 1.25 and 0.625 mg/L for FC10-diol and FHxSA, respectively. In larval studies, we observed impacts on growth following exposure to PFHxS and PFOS at concentrations of 100 and 2.5 mg/L, respectively, while no impacts were observed in larvae when exposed to PFOA and HFPO-DA at concentration of 100 mg/L. Further, we did not observe impacts on thyroid endpoints in exposed larvae. These experiments have broadened our understanding of the impact of PFAS on anuran development.

Indexed as

Embryo, NonmammalianFluorocarbonsLarvaMetamorphosis, BiologicalXenopus laevisAlkanesulfonic AcidsAnimalsCaprylatesDose-Response Relationship, DrugEmbryonic DevelopmentSulfonic AcidsThyroid HormonesAlkanesulfonic AcidsCaprylatesFluorocarbonsperfluorohexanesulfonic acidperfluorooctane sulfonic acidperfluorooctanoic acidSulfonic AcidsThyroid Hormonesamphibiandevelopmental toxicityendocrinePFAStadpoles

Identifiers

PMID38531109
PMCPMC11402019
OpenAlexW4393184075

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.