Errata to: xenobiotic detoxification in the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans

✍ Scribed by Tim H. Lindblom; Allyn K. Dodd

• Publisher: Wiley (John Wiley & Sons)
• Year: 2009
• Tongue: English
• Weight: 35 KB
• Volume: 311A
• Category: Article
• ISSN: 1932-5223
• DOI: 10.1002/jez.528

✦ Synopsis

In our review of the use of C. elegans as a biosensor (Lindblom and Dodd, 2006), we regrettably misrepresented the work of Dr. Cristina Lagido and colleagues when we inadvertently compared their use of bacterial and eukaryotic luciferase enzymes in C. elegans. We stated on page 726 that One study utilized a constitutive promoter to drive expression of the bioluminescent firefly luciferase and assayed loss of luminescence in response to temperature, metal ions, and xenobiotics (Lagido et al., 2001), although it appears that the assay itself is toxic to C. elegans (Hollis et al., 2001). In fact, these two studies from the same laboratories show quite clearly that though bacterial luciferase is indeed not a suitable reporter owing to toxicity of the substrate (ndecyl-aldehyde) to C. elegans, firefly luciferase is not only nontoxic, but also an excellent reporter for the C. elegans system. For example, they have recently demonstrated that ubiquitous expression of firefly luciferase can be used to assess global ATP levels in live animals (Lagido et al., 2008). The authors thank Lagido and her colleagues for pointing out the error and regret any misunderstanding that may have resulted from our comments.