Exposures to Estradiol, Ethinylestradiol and Octylphenol Affect Survival and Growth of<i>Rana pipiens and Rana sylvatica</i>Tadpoles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs) are often detected in the aquatic environment and can negatively affect the health of wildlife populations. However, little is known about the sensitivity of native amphibians to EDCs. Wood frogs (Rana sylvatica) and Northern leopard frogs (Rana pipiens) were exposed to three estrogenic EDCs: estradiol (E2), ethinylestradiol (EE2), and 4-tert-octylphenol (OP). In addition, R. pipiens were exposed during two developmental stages (Gosner stages 26 and 36) to examine life-stage differences in sensitivity. Tadpoles were exposed for 2 wk to 8 nominal concentrations (0.25 microM-10 microM) of each compound. Individual mortality was recorded during the exposure period, while body weight was measured at the end of 2 wk. LC50 values were calculated, and differences in body weight between vehicle control and exposed groups were assessed. Rank order toxicity of the compounds for both R. pipiens stages and both species was OP > EE2 > E2. Gosner stage 26 tadpoles were more sensitive (LC50: E2 [5.57 microM], EE2 [3.01 microM], OP [1.36 microM]) to all three compounds when compared to stage 36 tadpoles (LC50: E2 [>10 microM], EE2 [4.17 microM], OP [2.80 microM]). Interspecies comparisons revealed R. sylvatica tadpoles (LC50: E2 [2.50 microM], EE2 [1.89 microM], OP [0.74 microM]) as being more sensitive to the three compounds than R. pipiens (LC50: E2 [4.56 microM], EE2 [2.75 microM], OP [1.42 microM]). Xenoestrogen exposure also affected tadpole body weight which may have long-term adverse effects on the rate of metamorphosis. These results provide toxicological data needed for assessing sublethal effects of estrogenic compounds on amphibian development and suggest that environmental levels of OP may pose a serious risk to the health of amphibian populations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".