Cytotoxicity and Genotoxicity of Imidacloprid, Spinosad and Bifenthrin - Myclobutanil Combination to Allium cepa Root Tip Meristematic Cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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).
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".