Population Growth Rate Responses of <i>Ceriodaphnia dubia</i> to Ternary Mixtures of Specific Acting Chemicals: Pharmacological versus Ecotoxicological Modes of Action
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When considering joint toxic apical effects at higher levels of biological organization, such as the growth of populations, the so-called pharmacological mode of action that relies on toxicological mechanistic effects on molecular target sites may not be relevant. Such effects on population growth rate will depend on the extent to which juvenile and adult survival rates and production rates (juvenile developmental rates and reproduction) are affected by toxic exposure and also by the sensitivity of population growth rates to life-history changes. In such cases, the ecotoxicological mode of action, defined as the crucial life-history trait processes and/or xenobiotic-life-history trait interactions underlying a toxicological effect on population growth rate, should be considered. Life-table response experiments with the crustacean Ceriodaphnia dubia exposed to single and ternary mixtures of nine compounds were conducted to test the hypothesis that joint effects on population growth rates could be predicted from the mixture constituent ecotoxicological mode of action. Joint effects of mixtures containing pharmacologically dissimilar compounds (cadmium, λ-cyhalothrin, and chlorpyrifos) that differentially affected life-history traits contributing to population growth rates were accurately predicted by the independent-action concept. Conversely, the concentration-addition concept accurately predicted joint effects of two different mixtures: one containing pharmacologically similar acting pyrethroids that also affected similarly life-history traits, the other one that included pharmacologically dissimilar compounds (3,4-dichloroaniline, sodium bromide, and fenoxycarb) acting mainly on reproduction rates. These results indicate that when assessing combined effects on population growth rate responses, selection of mixture toxicity conceptual models based on the ecotoxicological mode of action of mixture constituents provided more accurate predictions than those based on the pharmacological mode of action.
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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".