Cytotoxicity and Genotoxicity of Imidacloprid, Spinosad and Bifenthrin - Myclobutanil Combination to Allium cepa Root Tip Meristematic Cells
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Pesticides use boosts agricultural yield by reducing crop losses. However, some pesticides are mutagens and while technical grade active ingredients may produce mixed results in cytotoxicity and mutagenicity tests in in vitro and in vivo assays, synergistic interaction of pesticides, their metabolites or impurities in pesticide formulations often produce cytotoxic and genotoxic effects. This study assessed three concentrations (mg mL-1) (0.04, 0.08 and 0.16) each of Aphicide Plus® (AP) (imidacloprid at 20g L-1); Eco Fruit-fly Bait GF120® (EF) (spinosad at 0.24 g L-1) and Rosecare 3® (RC3) (combination of bifenthrin at 2.0 g L-1 and myclobutanil at 7.5 g L-1) for their effect on the (P+M)/ (A+T) Ratio, cytotoxicity and genotoxicity using the Allium cepa assay. A. cepa seedlings were treated for 24 hours, root tip squashes were prepared and the slides were examined under the microscope. For each pesticide treatment and the negative control, 6000 cells were examined and the cells were classified into interphase, normal (N) or aberrant (ABN) mitotic division stage. The cytotoxicity and genotoxicity induced by each pesticide concentration was compared with the value for the negative control using t-test. The 0.08 mg mL-1 of AP, 0.04 mg mL-1 of EF, and 0.08 and 0.16 mg mL-1 of RC3 induced significant change in the (P+M)/(A+T) ratio, (p > 0.05). All three concentrations of each pesticide significantly depressed the mitotic index (MI) and were adjudged cytotoxic (P < 0.05). Genotoxicity (GT) was expressed as the number of aberrant mitotic cells (AMC) per 100 mitotic cells scored. The three concentrations of each pesticide induced genotoxicity (P < 0.05). Pesticides use boosts agricultural yield by reducing crop losses. However, some pesticides are mutagens and while technical grade active ingredients may produce mixed results in cytotoxicity and mutagenicity tests in in vitro and in vivo assays, synergistic interaction of pesticides, their metabolites or impurities in pesticide formulations often produce cytotoxic and genotoxic effects. This study assessed three concentrations (mg mL-1) (0.04, 0.08 and 0.16) each of Aphicide Plus® (AP) (imidacloprid at 20g L-1); Eco Fruit-fly Bait GF120® (EF) (spinosad at 0.24 g L-1) and Rosecare 3® (RC3) (combination of bifenthrin at 2.0 g L-1 and myclobutanil at 7.5 g L-1) for their effect on the (P+M)/ (A+T) Ratio, cytotoxicity and genotoxicity using the Allium cepa assay. A. cepa seedlings were treated for 24 hours, root tip squashes were prepared and the slides were examined under the microscope. For each pesticide treatment and the negative control, 6000 cells were examined and the cells were classified into interphase, normal (N) or aberrant (ABN) mitotic division stage. The cytotoxicity and genotoxicity induced by each pesticide concentration was compared with the value for the negative control using t-test. The 0.08 mg mL-1 of AP, 0.04 mg mL-1 of EF, and 0.08 and 0.16 mg mL-1 of RC3 induced significant change in the (P+M)/(A+T) ratio, (p > 0.05). All three concentrations of each pesticide significantly depressed the mitotic index (MI) and were adjudged cytotoxic (P < 0.05). Genotoxicity (GT) was expressed as the number of aberrant mitotic cells (AMC) per 100 mitotic cells scored. The three concentrations of each pesticide induced genotoxicity (P < 0.05).
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».