Allium cepa tests: A plant-based tool for the early evaluation of toxicity and genotoxicity of newly synthetized antifungal molecules
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many fungal genera such as Aspergillus, Penicillium, Fusarium and Alternaria are able to produce, among many other metabolites, the aflatoxins, a group of toxic and carcinogenic compounds. To reduce their formation, synthetic fungicides are used as an effective way of intervention. However, the extensive use of such molecules generates long-term residues into the food and the environment. The need of new antifungal molecules, with high specificity and low off-target toxicity is worth. The aim of this study was to evaluate: i) the toxicity and genotoxicity of newly synthesized molecules with a good anti-mycotoxic activity, and ii) the suitability of the Allium cepa multi-endpoint assay as an early screening method for chemicals. Eight compounds were tested for toxicity by using the A. cepa bulb root elongation test and for genotoxicity using the A. cepa bulb mitotic index, micronuclei and chromosome aberrations tests. Three molecules showed no toxicity, while two induced mild toxic effects in roots exposed to the highest dose (100 µM). A more pronounced toxic effect was caused by the other three compounds for which the EC50 was approximately 50 μM. Furthermore, all molecules showed a clear genotoxic activity, both in terms of chromosomal aberrations and micronuclei. Albeit the known good antifungal activity, the different molecules caused strong toxic and genotoxic effects. The results indicate the suitability of experiments with A. cepa as a research model for the evaluation of the toxic and genotoxic activities of new molecules in plants before they are released into the environment.
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) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".