Potency of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in chicken and Japanese quail embryos
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Birds are receptors of concern for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), yet limited data describing the relative potency of PAH congeners are available for avian species. In the present study, we determined embryonic median lethal dose (LD50) values for 5 PAH congeners in chicken (Gallus gallus) and one PAH congener in Japanese quail (Coturnix japonica). Graded concentrations of each test compound were injected into the air cell of chicken or quail eggs before incubation. Embryos were monitored through development (quail) or hatching (chicken). All PAHs tested caused dose-dependent increases in embryo mortality, but few other effects (e.g., weight changes, deformities) were observed. In chicken, windows of developmental sensitivity were identified between embryonic days 4 and 9 and between embryonic days 20 and 22. The rank order potency of benzo[k]fluoranthene (BkF; 76 μg/kg) ≈ dibenz[ah]anthracene (83 μg/kg) > indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene (325 μg/kg) > benzo[a]pyrene (461 μg/kg) > benz[a]anthracene (529 μg/kg) corresponded well with previous in vitro estimates in birds. Previously published ethoxyresorufin-O-deethylase median effect concentrations from cultured chicken embryo hepatocytes were highly predictive of our LD50s (p < 0.001, r2 = 0.99). To explore differences in sensitivity between species, Japanese quail eggs were injected with BkF, the most potent PAH. We found that chicken and quail were nearly equally sensitive to BkF. The present results contribute to our developing understanding of variability in responses to PAHs among congeners and species. Environ Toxicol Chem 2018;37:1556–1564. © 2018 SETAC
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) | 0.001 | 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".