Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40278153›Full record

ReviewJournal of xenobiotics2025

Developments in Toxicity Testing with Duckweeds.

Paul Ziegler

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of xenobiotics, 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. Article
  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

1 author.

Paul ZieglerDepartment of Plant Physiology, University of Bayreuth, 95440 Bayreuth, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2486-9048

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Duckweeds are a family of small floating macrophytes (the Lemnaceae) that inhabit quiet freshwaters worldwide. They have long been employed to determine toxicity to higher plants in the aquatic environment, and standardized national and international protocols have been developed for this purpose using two representative species. While these protocols, which assess the growth of the leaf-like fronds of the tested duckweed, are indeed suitable and still frequently used for detecting the toxicity of water-borne substances to aquatic higher plant life, they are cumbersome and lengthy, determine endpoints rather than depict toxicity timelines, and provide no information as to the mechanisms involved in the indicated toxicity. Progress has been made in downscaling, shortening and improving the standardized assay procedures, and the use of alternative duckweed species, protocols and endpoints for detecting toxicity has been explored. Biomarkers of toxic effect have long been determined concomitantly with testing for toxicity itself, and their potential for the assessment of toxicity has recently been greatly expanded by transcriptomic, proteomic and metabolomic techniques complemented by FITR spectroscopy, transformation and genotoxicity and timescale toxicity testing. Improved modern biomarker analysis can help to both better understand the mechanisms underlying toxicity and facilitate the identification of unknown toxins.

Indexed as

biomarkersduckweedstoxicity tests

Identifiers

PMID40278153
PMCPMC12028534

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.