ReviewNaunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology2025
Laboratory and physiological aspects of substitute metazoan models for in vivo pharmacotoxicological analysis.
Review in Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology, 2025. 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.
- Are Silver and Gold Nanoparticles Obtained by 'Green' Synthesis Biocompatible?Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Central toxic effects of an antitumoral bufadienolide: In silico targets and in vivo findings.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Article
- A Dual Bioassay for Evaluation of Embryotoxicity and Acute Toxicity of Common Solvents and Surfactants inToxics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
New methods are essential to characterize the performance of substitute procedures for detecting therapeutic action(s) of a chemical or key signal of toxicological events. Herein, it was discussed the applications and advantages of using arthropods, worms, and fishes in pharmacological and/or toxicology assessments. First of all, the illusion of similarity covers many differences between humans and mice, remarkably about liver injury and metabolism of xenobiotics. Using invertebrates, especially earthworms (Eisenia fetida), brine shrimps (Artemia salina, Daphnia magna), and insects (Drosophila melanogaster) and vertebrates as small fishes (Oryzias latipes, Pimephales promelas, Danio rerio) has countless advantages, including fewer ethical conflicts, short life cycle, high reproduction rate, simpler to handle, and less complex anatomy. They can be used to find contaminants in organic matters and water and are easier genetically engineered with orthologous-mutated genes to explore specific proteins involved in proliferative and hormonal disturbances, chemotherapy multidrug resistance, and carcinogenicity. As multicellular embryos, larvae, and mature organisms, they can be tested in bigger-sized replication platforms with 24-, 96-, or 384-multiwell plates as cheaper and faster ways to select hit compounds from drug-like libraries to predict acute, subacute or chronic toxicity, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy parameters of pharmaceutical, cosmetic, and personal care products. Meanwhile, sublethal exposures are designed to identify changes in reproduction, body weight, DNA damages, oxidation, and immune defense responses in earthworms and zebrafishes, and swimming behaviors in A. salina and D. rerio. Behavioral parameters also give specificities on sublethal effects that would not be detected in zebrafishes by OECD protocols.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39298017What 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.