The Comet Assay, a Sensitive Biomarker of Water Quality Improvement Following Adoption of Beneficial Agricultural Practices?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Numerous actions have been undertaken by farmers to attenuate the impact of agricultural activities on aquatic ecosystems. The identification of biomarkers that respond quickly to water quality improvement could facilitate the assessment of adopted alternative practices and help maintain mobilization among stakeholders. We evaluated the potential of the comet assay, a biomarker of genotoxic effects, using a freshwater mussel, Elliptio complanata, as a model animal. The frequency of DNA damage was assessed in hemocytes of mussels collected from a pristine habitat and caged for 8 weeks in the Pot au Beurre River, a tributary of the fluvial Lake St.-Pierre (Quebec, Canada) impacted by agricultural activities. We found that the level of DNA damage naturally induced in mussel hemocytes was low and showed very limited variations over time. Compared with these baseline levels and to laboratory controls, we observed a doubling in DNA alterations in mussels exposed to agricultural runoff in the third branch of the Pot au Beurre River. The genotoxic response was significantly lower in mussels caged in the first branch of the Pot au Beurre River, where longer stretches of shoreline have been restored as buffer strips. Glyphosate, mesotrione, imazethapyr, and metolachlor were the main discriminant pesticides between these two branches. Metolachlor was found in sufficient concentrations to induce DNA damage, but it is more likely that the observed genotoxicity was the result of a "cocktail effect," that is, the cumulative contribution of coexisting genotoxicants including the above-mentioned herbicides and ingredients in their formulation. Our findings suggest that the comet assay is a sensitive tool for the early detection of changes in water toxicity following the adoption of agricultural beneficial practices. Environ Toxicol Chem 2023;42:2201-2214. © 2023 Crown copyright and The Authors. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of SETAC. This article is published with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the King's Printer for Scotland.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".