ArticleThe ISME journal2025
Ecology-based approach to predict no-effect antibiotic concentrations for minimizing environmental selection of resistance.
Article in The ISME journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Development and spread of antibiotic resistance in the environment due to increased anthropogenic input of antibiotic residues and resistant pathogens].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2026Review
- Selective shifts in mobile antibiotic resistance genes under carbamazepine exposure in wastewater microbiomes.ISME communications · 2026Article
- Glyphosate resistance as a potential driver for the dissemination of multidrug-resistant clinical strains.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
- Towards the integration of antibiotic resistance gene mobility into environmental surveillance and risk assessment.npj antimicrobials and resistance · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Selection for antibiotic resistance has been demonstrated at low, environmentally relevant antibiotic concentrations. The concept of minimum selective concentrations (MSCs) has been adopted in environmental regulation to define maximum permissible antibiotic concentrations. Such empirically determined MSC values often fail to reflect the complexity of natural communities, where susceptibility and resistance-associated fitness costs vary widely across species. To address this limitation, computational approaches have been developed to predict no-effect concentrations for selection of antibiotic resistance (PNECres) from routinely collected minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) data. However, these approaches, using assessment factors to convert MICs to PNECres, often lack a strong ecological basis, undermining confidence in their predictions. Here, we propose a simple but biologically consistent framework to derive PNECres values by integrating MIC data with probabilistic estimates of resistance-related fitness costs. We demonstrate mathematically and empirically that for typical high-level resistances, the MSC/MIC ratio is approximately equal to the resistance cost, allowing for cost-based estimation of MSCs. In experimental validation across 26 strain-antibiotic combinations, 66% of computed MSCs deviated by less than factor two from empirical values. Leveraging these findings, we explored the general distribution of fitness costs of resistance determinants to establish a cost-based probabilistic model for replacing conventional fixed assessment factors. When applied to current MIC databases, our framework suggests that regulatory environmental threshold concentrations should be lowered by at least one order of magnitude to guard against selection for antibiotic resistance. Our approach offers a feasible and biologically transparent alternative for deriving PNECres values in environmental risk assessment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.