Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 168

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

In Vitro Assessment of Modes of Toxic Action of Pharmaceuticals in Aquatic Life

Escher, Beate I., Bramaz, Nadine, Eggen, Rik I. L., Richter, Manuela·2005·Environmental Science & Technology

Abstract

An ecotoxicological test battery based on a mode-of-action approach was designed and applied to the hazard identification and classification of modes of action of six pharmaceuticals (carbamazepine, diclofenac, ethinyl estradiol, ibuprofen, propranolol, and sulfamethoxazole). The rationale behind the design of the battery was to cover the relevant interactions that a compound may have with biological targets. It is thus not comprehensive but contains representative examples of each category of mode of toxic action including nonspecific, specific, and reactive toxicity. The test battery consists of one test system for nonspecific toxicity (baseline toxicity or narcosis), two test systems for specific effects, and two test systems for reactive toxicity. The baseline toxicity was quantified with the Kinspec test, which detects membrane leakage via measurements of membrane potential. This test system may also be used to detect the specific effects on energy transduction, although this was not relevant to any compound investigated in this study. As examples of specific receptor-mediated toxicity, we chose the yeast estrogen screen (YES) as a specific test for estrogenicity, and the inhibition of chlorophyll fluorescence in algae to assess specific effects on photosynthesis. Reactive modes of action were assessed indirectly by measuring the relevance of cellular defense systems. Differences in growth inhibition curves between a mutant of Escherichia coli that could not synthesize glutathione and its parent strain indicate the relevance of conjugation with glutathione as a defense mechanism, which is an indirect indicator of protein damage. DNA damage was assessed by comparing the growth inhibition in a strain that lacks various DNA repair systems with that in its competent parent strain. Most compounds acted merely as baseline toxicants in all test systems. As expected, ethinylestradiol was the only compound showing estrogenic activity. Propranolol was baseline-toxic in all test systems exceptforthe photosynthesis inhibition assay, where it surprisingly showed a 100-fold excess toxicity over the predicted baseline effect. The exact mode of toxic action could not be confirmed, but additional chlorophyll fluorescence induction experiments excluded the possibility of direct interference with photosynthesis through photosystem II inhibition. Mixture experiments were performed as a diagnostic tool to analyze the mode of toxic action. Compounds with the same mode of toxic action showed the expected concentration addition. In the photosynthesis inhibition assay, agreement between experimental results and prediction was best for two-stage predictions considering the assigned modes of action. In a two-stage prediction, concentration addition was used as a model to predict the mixture effect of the baseline toxicants followed by their independent action as a single component combined with the specifically acting compound propranolol and the reference compound diuron. A comparison with acute toxicity data for algae, daphnia, and fish showed generally good agreement for the nonspecifically acting compounds but also that the proposed test battery offered better diagnostic value in the case of the specifically acting compounds.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/es048590e

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Escher, B. I., Bramaz, N., Eggen, R. I. L., & Richter, M.
Venue
Environmental Science & Technology
Published
2005-03-23
Volume
39
Issue
9
Pages
3090-3100
ISSN
  • 0013-936X (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-5851
OpenAlex
W1997638858
Cited by
168
References
0
FWCI
11.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.