Glyphosate and neurological outcomes: A systematic literature review of animal studies.

Virginia C Moser, Keith Morris-Schaffer, Jason R Richardson, Abby A Li
{"title":"Glyphosate and neurological outcomes: A systematic literature review of animal studies.","authors":"Virginia C Moser, Keith Morris-Schaffer, Jason R Richardson, Abby A Li","doi":"10.1080/10937404.2022.2083739","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Studies of nervous system effects of glyphosate, a widely used herbicide, have not been critically examined. The aim of this paper was to systematically review glyphosate-induced neurotoxicity literature to determine its usefulness in regulatory decision-making. The review was restricted to mammalian studies of behavior, neuropathology, and neuropharmacology; <i>in vitro</i> and other biochemical studies were considered supplementary information. Glyphosate formulation studies were also considered, despite uncertainties regarding toxicities of the formulated products; no studies used a formulation vehicle as the control. Inclusion criteria were developed <i>a priori</i> to ensure consistent evaluation of studies, and <i>in vivo</i> investigations were also ranked using ToxRTool software to determine reliability. There were 27 <i>in vivo</i> studies (open literature and available regulatory reports), but 11 studies were considered unreliable (mostly due to critical methodological deficiencies). There were only seven acceptable investigations on glyphosate alone. Studies differed in terms of dosing scenarios, experimental designs, test species, and commercial product. Limitations included using only one dose and/or one test time, small sample sizes, limited data presentation, and/or overtly toxic doses. While motor activity was the most consistently affected endpoint (10 of 12 studies), there were considerable differences in outcomes. In six investigations, there were no marked neuropathological changes in the central or peripheral nervous system. Other neurological effects were less consistent, and some outcomes were less convincing due to influences including high variability and small effect sizes. Taken together, these studies do not demonstrate a consistent impact of glyphosate on the structure or function of the mammalian nervous system.</p>","PeriodicalId":54519,"journal":{"name":"Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol","volume":"6 1","pages":"162-209"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10937404.2022.2083739","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/6/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Studies of nervous system effects of glyphosate, a widely used herbicide, have not been critically examined. The aim of this paper was to systematically review glyphosate-induced neurotoxicity literature to determine its usefulness in regulatory decision-making. The review was restricted to mammalian studies of behavior, neuropathology, and neuropharmacology; in vitro and other biochemical studies were considered supplementary information. Glyphosate formulation studies were also considered, despite uncertainties regarding toxicities of the formulated products; no studies used a formulation vehicle as the control. Inclusion criteria were developed a priori to ensure consistent evaluation of studies, and in vivo investigations were also ranked using ToxRTool software to determine reliability. There were 27 in vivo studies (open literature and available regulatory reports), but 11 studies were considered unreliable (mostly due to critical methodological deficiencies). There were only seven acceptable investigations on glyphosate alone. Studies differed in terms of dosing scenarios, experimental designs, test species, and commercial product. Limitations included using only one dose and/or one test time, small sample sizes, limited data presentation, and/or overtly toxic doses. While motor activity was the most consistently affected endpoint (10 of 12 studies), there were considerable differences in outcomes. In six investigations, there were no marked neuropathological changes in the central or peripheral nervous system. Other neurological effects were less consistent, and some outcomes were less convincing due to influences including high variability and small effect sizes. Taken together, these studies do not demonstrate a consistent impact of glyphosate on the structure or function of the mammalian nervous system.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
草甘膦与神经系统疾病:动物研究的系统文献综述。
草甘膦是一种广泛使用的除草剂,有关草甘膦对神经系统影响的研究尚未得到严格审查。本文旨在系统回顾草甘膦诱导的神经毒性文献,以确定其对监管决策的有用性。综述仅限于哺乳动物的行为学、神经病理学和神经药理学研究;体外研究和其他生化研究被视为补充信息。草甘膦制剂研究也在考虑之列,尽管制剂产品的毒性尚不确定;没有研究使用制剂载体作为对照。事先制定了纳入标准,以确保对研究进行一致的评估,并使用 ToxRTool 软件对体内调查进行排序,以确定其可靠性。共有 27 项体内研究(公开文献和现有监管报告),但有 11 项研究被认为不可靠(主要是由于方法上的重大缺陷)。仅有 7 项关于草甘膦的调查是可以接受的。这些研究在剂量方案、实验设计、测试物种和商业产品方面各不相同。不足之处包括只使用一种剂量和/或一种试验时间、样本量小、数据展示有限和/或剂量毒性过大。虽然运动活动是最常受影响的终点(12 项研究中的 10 项),但结果却存在很大差异。在六项研究中,中枢或周围神经系统均未出现明显的神经病理学变化。其他神经系统影响的一致性较差,由于变异性大和效应量小等影响因素,一些结果不太令人信服。综上所述,这些研究并未证明草甘膦对哺乳动物神经系统的结构或功能产生一致的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Glyphosate and neurological outcomes: A systematic literature review of animal studies. Structure-based analysis and evolution of a monomerized red-colored chromoprotein from the Olindias formosa jellyfish. The Internationalisation of Tobacco Control, 1950-2010. Comparison of self-rating and quantity-frequency measures of drinking. Begging and social deviance on skid row.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1