Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39960879›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental toxicology and chemistry2025

Application of transcriptomics concentration-response modeling for prioritization of contaminants detected in tributaries of the North American Great Lakes.

Jenna E Cavallin, Kendra Bush, Steve Corsi, Laura DeCicco, Kevin Flynn, Alex Kasparek, Monique Hazemi, Erin Maloney, Peter Schumann, Daniel L Villeneuve

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental toxicology and chemistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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.

Jenna E CavallinGreat Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division, U.S. EPA, Duluth, MN, United States.
Kendra BushGreat Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division, Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education Fellowship, US EPA, Duluth, MN, United States.
Steve CorsiUpper Midwest Water Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Madison, WI, United States.
Laura DeCiccoUpper Midwest Water Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Madison, WI, United States.
Kevin FlynnGreat Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division, U.S. EPA, Duluth, MN, United States.
Alex KasparekGreat Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division, Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education Fellowship, US EPA, Duluth, MN, United States.
Monique HazemiOffice of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, United States.
Erin MaloneyDepartment of Biology, University of Minnesota-Duluth, Duluth, MN, United States.
Peter SchumannGreat Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division, SpecPro Professional Services, Duluth, MN, United States.
Daniel L VilleneuveGreat Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division, U.S. EPA, Duluth, MN, United States.

Funding

Environmental Protection Agency Great LakesIntramural EPA EPA999999National Program Office and Great Lakes Restoration Initiative
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As part of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, chemical monitoring and surveillance efforts have detected approximately 330 chemicals in surface water of Great Lakes tributaries. There were 140 chemicals for which no empirical toxicity data were available. The aim of this study was to generate transcriptomic points of departure (tPODs) for 10 of these compounds and demonstrate how they could be applied in a screening-level prioritization. Organisms representing three trophic levels of the aquatic food web (Pimephales promelas, Daphnia magna, and Raphidocelis subcapitata) were exposed for 24 hr to a half-log dilution series of nominal exposure concentrations typically ranging from 66.7-0.021 µM of each chemical. In addition to observations of apical effects (e.g., survival and morphology), whole body transcriptomic responses (tPODs) to each chemical were evaluated with targeted analysis using TempO-seq for P. promelas and D. magna and nontargeted RNA-seq for R. subcapitata. The tPODs ranged from 0.18-10.8 µM for P. promelas and 0.32-29 µM for D. magna, with the most potent of the chemicals tested being fipronil carboxamide for both species. For R. subcapitata, the tPODs ranged from 0.04-1.77 µM, with gabapentin as the most potent chemical tested. Empirically derived tPODs from these data-poor chemicals were compared with concentrations detected in the Great Lakes basin. Environmental concentrations were less than the tPODs except for R. subcapitata and 3,4-dichlorophenyl isocyanate. Similarly, tPODs from previously tested data-rich chemicals were compared with environmental concentrations, in which case tPODs from several chemicals overlapped environmental concentrations. This work demonstrates the potential utility of emerging ecological high-throughput transcriptomics assays to support screening and prioritization of data-poor environmental contaminants.

Indexed as

Environmental MonitoringLakesTranscriptomeWater Pollutants, ChemicalAnimalsCyprinidaeDaphniaDose-Response Relationship, DrugGreat Lakes RegionWater Pollutants, Chemicalfishinvertebratespoint of departuretranscriptomics

Identifiers

PMID39960879
PMCPMC13104332

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.