Next Article in Journal
The Protective Effect and Molecular Mechanism of Tetrandrine on Male Reproductive Damage Caused by Silicon Dioxide
Previous Article in Journal
Highly Efficient Adsorption of Pb(II) by Magnesium-Modified Zeolite: Performance and Mechanisms
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Recent Progress in the Detection and Monitoring of Toxin-Producing Cyanoprokaryotes and Their Toxins

Department of Biochemistry, Molecular Medicine and Nutrigenomics, Faculty of Pharmacy, Medical University of Varna, 9002 Varna, Bulgaria
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Toxics 2026, 14(1), 86; https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics14010086
Submission received: 12 December 2025 / Revised: 9 January 2026 / Accepted: 17 January 2026 / Published: 18 January 2026

Abstract

Eutrophication of water bodies and the bloom of toxin-producing cyanoprokaryotes raise health concerns. Various cyanoprokaryotes species, including Microcystis, Raphidiopsis, Nodularia, and Chrysosporum, release toxins into the aquatic environment, which can reach concentrations toxic to humans and animals. Rising temperatures and human activities are primary drivers behind the increasing frequency of toxic cyanobacterial blooms. The Word Health Organization (WHO) has established provisional guideline values for cyanotoxins in drinking water and water used for other purposes in daily human activities, and has published guidance for identifying hazards and managing risks posed by cyanobacteria and their toxins. There are currently no acceptable limit values for cyanotoxins. To address monitoring needs, contemporary strategies now incorporate molecular genetics, immunoassays, biochemical profiling, and emerging machine-learning frameworks. This paper reviews current early detection methods for harmful cyanobacterial blooms, highlighting their practical advantages and drawbacks.

1. Introduction

Cyanoprokaryotes are unicellular organisms, among the most ancient inhabitants of the Earth, commonly known as blue-green algae. They are known for their ability to cause water “blooms” and release toxins (cyanotoxins). Their massive development, together with the ability of certain species or their strains to produce toxins under conditions of current climate change and increased anthropogenic pressure, turns them into a new risk factor for human and ecosystem health [1]. The growing interest in the study of harmful bloom-forming cyanoprokaryotes stimulates toxicological, pharmacological, and ecological scientific research focused on potentially toxic species and their hazardous products [2]. Managing the health risks of cyanobacteria has become more systematic through the World Health Organization’s provisional guideline values and hazard identification manuals for cyanotoxins in drinking water and water used for other purposes in daily human activities [3]. According to Annex II of the Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC, transposed into Bulgarian legislation for the characterization of surface waters, there are currently no acceptable limit values for cyanotoxins. A study of the cyanoprokaryote blooms in Bulgaria (Projects No KP-06-OPR03/18, 19.02.2018 funded by the Science Research Fund of the Ministry of Education and Science) encountered a problem in identifying the most appropriate methods for the detection and monitoring of toxin-producing cyanoprokaryotes and their toxins. The detection and quantification of cyanoprokaryotes and their associated toxins present a significant methodological challenge, as the choice of the best analysis is related to its specificity with regard to different taxonomic species, sensitivity, and the range of quantitative detection of the main groups of cyanotoxins: microcystins (MC), cylindrospermopsins (CYN), nodularins (NOD), saxitoxin (STX), and anatoxin-a (ATX). Furthermore, our understanding of cyanobacteria is geographically skewed, with the majority of data originating from freshwater bodies in China and the West. This leaves a significant gap in our knowledge of understudied habitats, where toxic metabolites present both a public health threat and a resource for biotechnology. Shifting research focus to these neglected areas is vital for uncovering the true extent of cyanobacterial variety and its environmental impacts. [4,5].
This review places primary emphasis on the most widely applied methods for the detection and monitoring of toxin-producing cyanoprokaryotes and their toxins in biological samples and waters.

2. Detection and Quantification of Cyanoprokaryotes and Their Toxins

Two major approaches are applied: direct analysis of either the presence of cyanoprokaryotes or of their toxins in natural and biological samples and indirect detection of possible presence, inferred from established, likely induced, and expected effects of cyanoprokaryotes or their toxins on isolated cells or living organisms. Each method demonstrates specific limitations regarding sensitivity, reliability, and detection limits [6]. In vivo and in vitro studies are gaining increasing popularity, as they track the metabolic and biological effects of algae toxins or their producers in the context of the ecosystem changes they provoke, while the taxonomical identification of cyanotoxin-producing prokaryotes requires special qualifications of specialists in lower plants, and remains quite challenging.

2.1. Direct Microscopy

Different microscopic techniques for cyanobacteria bloom sample examination have been applied and the classical light microscopy at a magnification of 100–400 times is the first choice and a standard method. Along with that, other microscopy techniques are used for more specific goals, such as determination of morphology specificity or ecological features of cyanobacteria—scanning electron microscopy (SEM), confocal laser scanning microscopy CLSM), and transmission electron microscopy (TEM) [7]. Direct microscopy is really useful, as the information on the species present in the water bloom sample may be used to predict the type of cyanotoxins that may be present and thus suggest the subsequent method for toxin analysis. On the other hand, morphological characteristics do not completely correspond to genotypes of environmental populations. Thus, organisms identified as belonging to the same species may express different types and quantities of toxins, which makes predictions about toxins uncertain. [8]. An integrative analysis of cyanobacterial communities in waterbodies of Moscow, Russia, established high convergence between microscopy and rRNA-based metabarcoding data for dominant genera, ascertaining the efficiency of metabarcoding as a rapid and reliable tool for detection of rare taxa missed by microscopy of harmful water cyanobacterial bloom samples. The method, however, is limited to distinguishing between toxigenic and nontoxigenic species [9].
Standard and inverted microscopes are also used for cyanobacteria quantification. An inverted microscope with counting chambers is a general preferred approach for estimating cyanobacterial numbers, while the standard microscope is sufficient for preconcentrated or naturally dense samples when the volume of the sample can be precisely defined [8].
At the same time, the traditional single-technique monitoring can easily miss episodic and transient cyanobacteria harmful algal-bloom events, as cyanobacterial biomass may vary between samples taken within a few hours or within short distances [10]. Analysis of a single sample, even though accurate, may not be indicative to assess the population size, thus imposing the requirement for multiple sampling, validation of methods, and integration of new molecular methods to control the results of the classical direct microscopy.

2.2. Molecular-Genetic Methods

The high specificity, reliability, and rapid turnaround of molecular assays provide a robust framework for quantifying cyanobacteria and identifying the presence of toxin-encoding genes in environmental samples. Due to their low detection limits, molecular-genetic assays facilitate the early identification of toxigenic strains, providing a crucial lead time for public health responses before blooms become visible.

2.2.1. Conventional Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR)

The method consists of in vitro multiplication (amplification) of a selected gene from template DNA using a pair of primers. After repeated cycles of heating and cooling, through the activity of a thermostable DNA polymerase, a high amount of DNA containing the nucleotide sequence of interest is obtained. The genes responsible for the production of cyanotoxins can be detected through sequencing of the cyanobacterial genome, which makes possible the PCR amplification of a target gene [11]. In the context of cyanobacteria, these molecular techniques serve as a definitive diagnostic tool for confirming their presence within environmental water samples. This is usually achieved by amplifying the gene for 16S ribosomal RNA, which can easily be visualized on an agarose gel [12].

2.2.2. Multiplex Polymerase CHAIN reaction (mPCR)

A method has been introduced that simultaneously identifies different taxonomic genetic markers associated with cylindrospermopsin production. Specifically, targeting the constitutive rpoC1 gene allows for the differentiation of Cylindrospermopsis raciborskii from other toxin-producing species like Anabaena bergii and Aphanizomenon ovalisporum [13]. Furthermore, Valério et al. [8] enhanced diagnostic capabilities by developing a multiplex PCR method that simultaneously amplifies the mcyA-cd, mcyAB, and mcyB fragments of the microcystin gene cluster. To validate the multiplex PCR, high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) was employed as the “gold standard” for toxicological assessment; the PCR assay demonstrated a sensitivity of 92.3% and a specificity of 100%. In this context, multiplex PCR can be considered a valid method for immediate indication of the cyanobacterial bloom’s toxic potential, providing useful information for monitoring water bodies by local authorities [6]. In a large-scale application of these markers, Moreira et al. [14] analyzed freshwater basins for the four primary cyanotoxins. Their findings revealed a high prevalence of toxin-encoding genes: 79% for microcystins (mcyA), 50% for saxitoxins (sxtI), and 40% each for cylindrospermopsins (cyrC) and anatoxins (anaC).

2.2.3. Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction (Real-Time PCR)

In this method, the amplification process can be monitored in real time through fluorescent labeling using TaqMan probes. A study by Rinta-Kanto et al. [15] aimed at detecting cyanotoxins in samples from Lake Erie in Oregon was conducted using real-time PCR analysis with specific TaqMan probes targeting a conserved microcystin-specific 16S rRNA fragment and the microcystin synthetase gene mcyD. Real-time PCR primers targeting the $rpoC1$ gene fragment were developed by Churro et al. [16] for Planktothrix agardhii; the resulting cell concentrations demonstrated a strong linear relationship with traditional microscopic counting methods. These findings establish the method as a precise, cost-efficient tool for the rapid, absolute quantification of potentially toxic cyanobacteria. However, due to various technical and biological factors, the determination of the actual toxin concentration can be inconsistent [17]. The quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) method has been applied for detecting cyanobacteria (via the 16S rRNA gene) and genes responsible for the synthesis of microcystins, cylindrospermopsins, nodularins, and saxitoxins in water samples from Lake Karaoun, collected during 2019–2020. Fifty percent of the samples tested positive for MC-producing genes (mcyE). Analysis revealed the presence of eleven microcystin (MC) variants, with peak concentrations reaching 211 μg/L for MC-LR and 199 μg/L for MC-YR. The ‘LR’ and ‘YR’ designations refer to the variable amino acids within the toxin’s cyclic structure—specifically leucine (L), arginine (R) and tyrosine (Y). In contrast, molecular screening for cylindrospermopsin (cyrA) and saxitoxin (stxA) production genes yielded no detections across any of the analyzed samples [18]. Groundbreaking research by Žegura et al. [19] utilized quantitative real-time PCR to provide the first evidence that cylindrospermopsin (CYN) at a concentration of 0.5 μg/mL modulates gene expression within human peripheral blood lymphocytes (HPBLs). Exposure induced the expression of genes presumed to participate in CYN metabolism (CYP1A1 and CYP1A2). Exposure to CYN was found to alter the mRNA expression of the p53 protein alongside its downstream targets—specifically MDM2 and GADD45α—which are critical mediators of the DNA damage response and apoptotic pathways. These findings provide convincing evidence that CYN should be considered genotoxic and that lymphocytes may also be a target of cylindrospermopsin-induced genotoxicity [14]. Conversely, in human liver cancer cell lines (HepG2), CYN did not induce any change in p53 tumor-suppressor gene expression at any of the tested concentrations after 4 and 24 h of exposure Štraser et al. [20], whereas Bain et al. [21] detected accumulation of p53 protein in the same cell line only after a longer exposure of 48 h. mRNA levels of selected genes were measured after treatment of human embryonic kidney 293 cells (HEK293) with 0.5 and 5 μg/mL CYN for 4 and 24 h. The results showed upregulation of gene expression after the longer exposure (24 h) and the highest concentration (5 μg/mL). Targeted genes spanned several functional categories, including xenobiotic metabolism (CYP1A1 and CYP1A2), DNA damage response (TP53 and CDKN1A), oxidative stress (CAT and GPX1), and apoptosis (BCL2). Exposure to a lower concentration (0.5 μg/mL) altered the expression of CYP1A2, CDKN1A, and GPX1 within 24 h. Notably, the apoptosis-related gene BAX was the only marker that exhibited no change in expression [22]. Lu et al. [23] tested both qPCR and reverse transcription qPCR (RT-qPCR). RT-qPCR was included to assess toxin gene expression in comparison to toxin levels. The authors found that detection of mcyA via qPCR or RT-qPCR increased approximately three weeks before increases in microcystins were observed through enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Consequently, qPCR is an effective method for identifying the early indicators of potential harmful cyanobacterial outbreaks.

2.3. Biochemical Methods

These types of analysis represent easy and accessible approaches for the rapid determination of cyanotoxin concentration. These detection methods work alongside molecular-biological approaches to verify the presence and concentration of toxins in aquatic environments.

2.3.1. Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA)

This approach exploits specific antibody–antigen interactions, to enable the sensitive detection of low-level proteins, peptides, and hormones in liquid samples. ELISA offers a highly specific and sensitive detection platform with the benefit of rapid analysis. This assay is useful for screening, with detection limits around 0.1 μg/L. Metcalf et al. [24] obtained polyclonal antibodies and developed an indirect competitive immunoassay showing good reactivity against one of the microcystin variants (MC-LR), which can be successfully used for determining MC content in environmental samples. Results from the ELISA analysis of water samples conducted by Sheng et al. [25] demonstrated a quantitative detection range for MC-LR from 0.17 to 2.32 μg/L, allowing the authors to conclude that the method is sensitive and reliable for detecting cyanotoxin contamination in water bodies and drinking water. ELISA has also been successfully applied to the detection of cyanotoxins in benthic mats. For instance, Bauer et al. [26] employed this method to quantify saxitoxin levels in the Lech River (Germany) following a series of canine poisoning incidents. Their analysis revealed peak saxitoxin concentrations of 0.59 μg/L within benthic mats and 0.35 μg/L in the surrounding open water. Using this assay, microcystins have been detected in dead mallard ducks (Foss et al. [27]), mussels (Mytilus galloprovincialis) (Baralla et al. [28]), and freshwater fish and marine mussels (Preece et al. [29]). Moreover, this technique is capable of detecting covalently bound MC, which is an advantage because microcystins can bind covalently with the catalytic subunits of protein phosphatases 1 and 2A, which are primarily found in liver tissue [30]. Table 1 provides a summary of the ELISA methods used for detecting microcystin, nodularin, and saxitoxin.

2.3.2. Fluorescence Polarization Immunoassay (FPIA)

The principle of FPIA relies on the divergence in fluorescent polarization states between the labeled antigen and the larger, more slowly rotating labeled analyte–antibody complex. The FPIA assay operates on a competitive binding principle: when the target cyanotoxin concentration is significantly lower than that of the fluorescently labeled marker, the antibody predominantly binds the marker, yielding high fluorescence polarization (FP) values. In contrast, higher toxin concentrations in the sample displace the marker, resulting in decreased FP values. Under optimal conditions, this method provides detection limits of 0.86mg/L for MC-LR and 0.95 mg/L for NOD. These sensitivities are sufficient to meet the WHO’s recommended interim guidelines for monitoring water safety [38]. Lei et al. [39] used labeled secondary antibodies to detect MC-LR in water sources with a wide quantitative range between 0.01 and 10 ng/mL, confirming that the method is among the most sensitive for detecting microcystins. Xu et al. [40] developed a fluorescent enzyme-linked immunoassay without fluorescent nanoparticle labeling for ultrasensitive detection of microcystin-LR in water and fish samples. Under optimal conditions, this method provides a low detection limit of 0.6 ng/L, approximately 30 times lower than traditional indirect competitive ELISA. A rapid immunochromatographic assay was applied to detect microcystins in water samples from different sites of the Curonian Lagoon, collected between May and November 2017. For the first time, during the vegetation season, toxic metabolites were present across the entire southern lagoon coastline, though none were found in May. Peak concentrations of 5–10 µg/L occurred in late June and September, while all other samples yielded results below 2.5 µg/L or below the limit of detection [41]. For the first time, a multiplex immunochromatographic assay based on two-color fluorescent microspheres was developed. Under optimal conditions, the assay is completed in 20 min and reaches simultaneous detection limits for MC-LR (0.074 μg/kg) and okadaic acid (2.42 μg/kg) in fish samples [42]. Later, Cevallos-Cedeño et al. [43] optimized the immunochromatographic assay with both visual and instrumental result reading. This test showed a visual detection limit for anatoxin-a in water samples of 4 ng/mL. A multiplex immunochromatographic test system was developed for concurrent detection of three distinct aquatic toxins: domoic acid (DA), okadaic acid (OA), and microcystin-LR. A competitive indirect immunochromatographic assay was performed using gold-labeled secondary antibodies. The detection limits/working ranges were 0.05–0.29, 1.3–58.2, and 0.1–1.1 ng/mL for MC-LR, DA, and OA, respectively. With an assay time of just 18 min, this method represents a promising tool for the rapid, simple, and sensitive monitoring of both aqueous- and food-matrix safety [44].

2.3.3. Protein Phosphatase Inhibitory Assay (PPIA)

Inhibition of eukaryotic protein phosphatases (PP) is a simple, fast, and sensitive colorimetric method. By measuring the absorbance at a target wavelength, the substrate or its resulting product can be quantified to assess enzyme activity, which correlates inversely with the toxin concentration. Depending on the protocol used, PPIA can detect toxins within several hours and is suitable for processing large numbers of samples. This procedure enables quantitative determination of MC-LR with a detection limit as low as 0.01 μg/L [45]. Measurements can be performed using radioisotope techniques based on 32P-labeled substrates, as well as colorimetric assays using substrates such as p-nitrophenyl phosphate. The assay features a working range of approximately 0.2–1 μg/L, enabling the direct quantification of cyanobacterial hepatotoxins in water samples without the need for prior concentration [46]. In a comparative study, Covaci et al. [47] evaluated the inhibitory effects of native PP2A, recombinant PP2A, and recombinant PP1 against three microcystin variants, MC-LR, MC-YR, and MC-RR. Their results identified MC-LR as the most potent inhibitor, followed by MC-YR and MC-RR. Among the enzymes tested, recombinant PP2A demonstrated the highest sensitivity to inhibition, surpassing both recombinant PP1 and native PP2A. Despite this sensitivity, a key limitation of the PPIA is its inability to distinguish between microcystins and nodularins. Therefore, results are often expressed as MC-LR equivalents. Additionally, when analyzing water containing cyanobacterial blooms, interference from unknown compounds must be considered, as it can lead to overestimation or underestimation of toxin concentrations [48]. Another drawback is the lack of specificity toward different MC variants, meaning that toxin identification is not possible and supplementary analyses are required to detect other cyanotoxins potentially present in the sample [49]. Without purification and isolation of MCs, the test also cannot differentiate cyanobacterial toxins from other environmental protein phosphatase inhibitors, such as okadaic acid, calyculin A, and tautomycin [50].

2.3.4. High-Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC)

Liquid chromatography is an ideal method for the quantification of algotoxins, as it offers high sensitivity and specificity. It allows reliable measurement of multiple toxins in complex environmental and biological samples at very low ng/L concentrations. The use of the method implies a lower sample volume required for analysis, thus facilitating collection and storage activities [51].
Additional HPLC analysis in the study by Kezlya et al. [9] demonstrates that the presence of microcystins accounts for a high proportion (20–28%) of extremely toxic microcystin-leucine arginine compounds. A recent study in Bulgaria used aerial drone observations for the first time as an additional tool for selecting sampling points during blooms in selected water bodies. The use of HPLC analysis of marker pigments for rapid determination of phytoplankton composition and biomass allowed the detection of cylindrospermopsin in freshwater water bodies, the detection of saxitoxins in Lake Durankulak, and the first data on microcystins for the Blue River Dam [52]. Liquid Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry analysis (LC-MS) is a chemical technique in analytical chemistry that combines the physical separation capabilities of liquid chromatography (HPLC) with the mass analysis capabilities of mass spectrometry, allowing the detection and identification of chemicals in complex mixtures with high sensitivity and selectivity. This method offers the identification or confirmation of each individual component in the analyte. This method is optimized for detecting the ratio of cyanotoxins to microcystins, providing high specificity in the discrimination of structurally similar molecules [53].
The analysis of cyanotoxins by LC–MS requires precise instrumental operation, given the high sensitivity of the method. In addition, accurate identification and quantitative determination require certified reference standards for each compound to be analyzed, and it should be emphasized that standards are lacking for many types of cyanotoxins [54]. Different chromatographic methods exhibit higher sensitivity and accuracy than other immunological assays. A drawback is their high cost, which makes them unsuitable for widespread use in early bloom detection processes. Nevertheless, liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry is used for the quantitative determination of cyanoprokaryotes and serves as a reference for comparing the accuracy and precision of other methods in use [55]. On the other hand, the ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography (UHPLC) method can be used to demonstrate the content of active compounds, for example carotenoids, in various biological species, including the green alga Caulerpa racemosa, as was done in the study of [56]. Interestingly, the isolated carotenoid extract from Caulerpa racemosa exhibits good biological activity by inhibiting pro-inflammatory cytokines such as TNF-α, antioxidant activity proven by DPPH and the ABTS method, and inhibition of α-glucosidase, α-amylase, which makes it a potential for the development of pharmaceutical products.

2.4. Measurement of Biochemical Markers (Indirect Assays)

Toxic cyanobacteria can induce the production of reactive oxygen species (ROS), which leads to oxidative stress and consequently alters the antioxidant defense systems of organisms [57]. Enzymes such as superoxide dismutase (SOD) and catalase (CAT), as well as other molecules like lipoic and dihydrolipoic acid, are key components of antioxidant defense. Their increased activity in animal tissues plays an important role in eliminating excessive levels of ROS [58]. Suppression of glutathione S-transferase (GST) activity may result from inhibition of enzyme synthesis, due to high accumulation of MC during exposure and depletion of reduced glutathione as a response to MC toxicity [57]. A 20-day exposure to saxitoxins has shown that in fish liver SOD activity decreases in the treated group compared to the control, while GPX activity and glutathione (GSH) levels increase in the saxitoxin-exposed group. These findings indicate that antioxidant defenses are stimulated in response to toxin-induced oxidative stress [59]. Pham et al. [60] examined microcystin accumulation and changes in the activity of antioxidant enzymes CAT, SOD, and GST in edible mussels Corbicula leana, following 10-day exposure to 100 μg MC. The mussels accumulated up to 12.7 μg/g dry weight of free MC and 4.2 μg/g dry weight of covalently bound MC. The results indicate that consumption of mussels harvested during cyanobacterial blooms poses a significant health risk. Biological indicators were also studied in the serum of people living near a lake with recurrent cyanobacterial blooms who were chronically exposed to cyanotoxins, particularly microcystins. The study revealed increased levels of liver enzymes aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) in 4% and 6% of subjects, respectively, while elevated AST and ALT levels were observed in 11% and 13% of the population. A significant difference was found between exposed children and adults. The fact that adults showed greater deviations from reference values supports the idea that the longer the exposure to the toxin, the more severely the liver is affected, and therefore greater deviations in liver enzyme levels can be expected [61].

2.5. In Vivo Analyses

The mouse bioassay developed by Falconer [62] serves as a semi-quantitative approach, facilitating a comparison of lesion severity against control groups exposed to standardized concentrations of toxins, typically MC-LR. The experiment involves injecting a sample into a group of animals followed by autopsy after 24 h of exposure. An increase in liver weight and volume is recorded as an indicator of hepatocellular damage and the presence of hepatotoxins in the organism. One of the earliest studies, by Vasconcelos [63], showed that several species of wild fish from Portuguese freshwater sources could accumulate MC. However, the toxin levels detected in edible tissues did not suggest a risk to human health. Research on cyanobacterial effects in fish primarily focuses on the neurotoxin anatoxin-a (ATX). Results indicate that ATX produced by Anabaena sp. can induce adverse physiological effects and even mortality during early developmental stages of common carp (Cyprinus carpio) [64,65]. An in vivo study reported characteristic signs of renal toxicity, including necrosis, enlarged proximal tubule lumens, and glomerular alterations in mice treated with cylindrospermopsin [66]. Over the last decade, research interest has increased regarding the effects of cyanobacterial toxins on cultivated plants due to the use of contaminated water in agriculture. The effects of MC and CYN exposure on edible plants have been documented for rice (Oryza sativa) (Azevedo et al. [67]), carrot (Daucus carota) (Machado et al. [68]), lettuce (Lactuca sativa) (Pereira et al. [69]), and spinach (Spinacea oleracea) (Freitas et al. [70]). Documented effects on vegetation include inhibited plant growth, disrupted oxidative homeostasis, and diminished nutritional quality. A recent study by Llana-Ruiz-Cabello et al. [71] demonstrated that spinach exhibits greater sensitivity to both MC and CYN—whether administered individually or as a mixture—than lettuce. Furthermore, plants exposed to the toxin combination showed distinct accumulation patterns, with CYN being assimilated more readily than MC.

2.6. In Vitro Analyses

Treatment of cells with a cytotoxic compound can lead to different cellular responses. Cells may undergo necrosis, losing membrane integrity and dying as a result of cell lysis. They may cease to grow and divide, or they may activate a genetic program for controlled cell death (apoptosis). A study by Dias et al. [72] evaluated the cytotoxicity of MC-LR on a renal cell line (Vero-E6). After 72 h of exposure to extracts from Microcystis aeruginosa producing MC-LR, cytotoxic effects were recorded in a concentrations ranging from 11 to 100 μM, with results varying based on the specific viability assay employed. These findings indicate that the observed cytotoxicity of the M. aeruginosa extract are attributable to MC-LR, rather than other secondary bioactive cyanobacterial metabolites. Given that MC-LR is recognized as a potent tumor promoter, Dias et al. [73] further investigated whether exposure to sub-cytotoxic concentrations of the toxin could stimulate cell proliferation in the Vero-E6 line. Results showed that nanomolar concentrations of MC-LR stimulated cell cycle progression in the Vero-E6 renal cell line. Analysis of mitogen-activated protein kinases (MAPK)—specifically p38, JNK, and ERK1/2—indicates that the proliferative effect of MC-LR is mediated by the activation of this signaling cascade. To determine the effects on human vascular health, Gültekin et al. [74] analyzed how total M. aeruginosa extract and various fractions separated by chromatography influenced the viability of ECV304 endothelial cells. Different concentrations of fraction 1 either inhibited or had no effect on cell growth, while lower concentrations of fraction 3 exhibited a significant proliferative effect, ranging from 14% to 78%. Interestingly, the lowest concentration (0.047 μg/μL) produced the strongest increase in cell viability, indicating that fraction 3 contains solely proliferative substances. However, the total extract, containing all fractions, inhibited cell proliferation in a dose-dependent manner. This suggests that the toxic components in the total extract act synergistically to counterbalance the proliferative substances. A similar proliferative effect of water samples from Bulgaria was observed in human intestinal cells (HIEC-6). An MTT assay was performed on 16 water samples collected in August 2019 from water bodies with blooms. Three samples strongly stimulated cell proliferation, with increases of 194% at lower doses and 159% at higher doses [75]. The authors hypothesized that this cytoproliferative effect may be linked to potential tumor initiation, representing a step in carcinogenesis connecting consumption of freshwater from cyanobacterial bloom events with higher cancer incidence in regions where such events are frequent. The impact of purified CYN on the viability of HIEC-6 cells was also examined, revealing a clear dose-dependent reduction in cell survival [76]. In a broader evaluation across multiple cell lines, Froscio et al. [77] observed that CYN induced delayed toxicity in Vero cells. This specific line exhibited an intermediate sensitivity—appearing less susceptible than hepatic cells, yet more sensitive than the intestinal Caco-2 line. Results from in vitro cytotoxicity tests of cylindrospermopsin, pointing out exact doses and exposure duration, are summarized in Table 2.
Morphological analysis surpasses simple cytotoxicity testing in informative value because it characterizes the specific nature and localization of the resulting cellular injury. These studies are based on assessing changes in cell morphology, which may involve alterations in cell shape or structural modifications. Damage to various cellular organelles, such as membranes, mitochondria, endoplasmic reticulum, and the nucleus, is investigated. Menezes et al. [83] explored the underlying mechanisms of MC-LR-induced damage in Vero-E6 and human liver cancer (HepG2) cells, focusing specifically on the interplay between endoplasmic reticulum (ER) dysfunction and the induction of autophagy. The results showed that after 24 h of exposure, HepG2 cells were more sensitive to MC-LR compared to Vero cells. Autophagy was induced in both cell lines as a survival response at low toxin concentrations. Furthermore, MC-LR caused a concentration-dependent decrease in GRP94 expression in HepG2 cells, while no changes were observed in Vero cells. This suggests the involvement of the ER in MC-LR-induced apoptosis in HepG2 cells, whereas in kidney cells ER disruption may result from cytoskeleton-related damage. Dias et al. [84] used the micronucleus assay to examine the genotoxicity of MC-LR in kidney (Vero-E6), liver (HepG2) cell lines, and mouse leukocytes. Exposure to MC-LR at concentrations of 5 and 20 μM induced a significant increase in micronuclei in both cell lines. Additionally, analysis of micronucleus content in HepG2 cells suggested that MC-LR induces both chromosome breaks and losses. Interestingly, Miguéns and Valério [85] investigated the effects of three of the most common microcystin variants on other multicellular organisms coexisting with freshwater cyanobacteria. The results showed that MC-LR, MC-RR, and MC-YR could reduce the growth of certain heterotrophic bacteria isolated from freshwater sources.

2.7. Machine Learning Models

Machine learning (ML) represents a sophisticated tool for the proactive forecasting of harmful algal blooms (HABs). By integrating multi-parametric datasets and complex temporal trends, these models can generate predictive warnings. For instance, Park et al. [86] utilized eleven environmental variables across two distinct machine-learning architectures to evaluate their efficacy in predicting cyanobacterial bloom thresholds within the Changnyung Haman Reservoir in Southeast Korea. The predictive framework utilized environmental parameters such as total dissolved nitrogen, total dissolved phosphorus, mean air temperature, and average wind speed. Specifically, Villanueva et al. [87] leveraged a four-year dataset (2018–2021) from an Iowa lake to construct a model capable of forecasting harmful cyanobacterial blooms (HCBs) with a one-week lead time. The most effective predictors identified were Microcystis mcyA gene abundance, pH, dissolved organic carbon (DOC), and orthophosphate. Three distinct machine-learning architectures were trained and rigorously validated using performance metrics including accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity.
Recently, the Toxigenic Cyanobacteria Dataset (TCB-DS) was presented as a novel public dataset and compared with previously existing methods for early monitoring of cyanobacteria in the environment [88,89]. The proposed method is characterized with high accuracy and reliability compared with other well-known deep learning models. One of the main advantages of TCB-DS is its efficiency in identifying cyanobacteria with complex morphology. Additionally, it demonstrates the practical potential of deep learning in water quality management, allowing early detection of harmful cyanobacterial blooms with high reliability and accuracy.
The dynamics of climate change and the significant impact of human activity on the environment require the use of all available resources to develop accurate, reliable methods for early monitoring of cyanoprokaryotes in aquatic environments.

2.8. Rapid on-Site Monitoring

Rapid on-site testing for cyanotoxins aims to detect toxin contamination in drinking- and ambient-water samples, and to provide early warning of concentrations exceeding safe limits. This is a valuable strategy for rapid monitoring, enabling immediate assessment of public health risks and animal safety. These methods are laboratory-independent and use minimal equipment, making them a less time-consuming and cost-effective alternative to traditional lab methods.
The test strips, for example, are inexpensive and easy to use on-site, providing early warnings of common cyanotoxins [90]. However, studies assessing the efficiency and accuracy of these rapid tests indicate that some kits need improvement in specificity and sensitivity [91]. It is essential to reduce false-positive and false-negative results, as these can distort information about possible risks to human and animal health [92]. In most cases, studies using these tests will likely require further studies with more sensitive methods, such as ELISA and LC-MS [90].
Another easy-to-use on-site tool with higher sensitivity and selectivity was recently proposed [93]. The Rapid On-Site Detection of Harmful Algal Blooms (RosHAB) is a portable DNA sequencing device that enables real-time sequencing of genetic material from samples to identify toxin-producing cyanobacterial species or toxin-synthesizing genes [93,94]. The data obtained by this method provide genomic information for toxin-producing organisms and distinguishing between different cyanobacterial species and, thus, potentially predict toxin production. However, the disadvantage of such an approach is the determination only of potency of toxin contamination rather than a direct measurement of cyanotoxin molecules.
Portable biosensors are miniature devices, often based on optical, electrochemical or fluorescent approaches, which detect cyanotoxins using specific reagents (antibodies, aptamers) and provide quantitative results [95,96]. The equipment used in these devices could include fluorescent competitive immunoassays, optical planar waveguides, and nanozyme-enhanced papers connected to a smartphone for result reading [96]. The main advantage of these methods, compared to the other rapid on-site approaches, is higher sensitivity, precision and capability of quantifying toxins. However, compared to test strips, these devices need more expensive equipment and consumables. Furthermore, they are still limited with regard to the full spectrum of all cyanotoxins.
In summary, rapid on-site tests generally do not replace gold laboratory standards (e.g., ELISA and LC MS/MS), but serve as an initial screening and guidance for further analysis.

2.9. Satellite Monitoring

Satellite monitoring of the color of waters with suspected cyanobacterial blooms is based on remote quantifying of cyanobacterial pigments, and allows for a remote characterization of the seasonal occurrence of the blooms. Typically, the identification and quantification of cyanobacteria is based on measuring chlorophyll-a (Chl-a), which indicates total phytoplankton biomass and phycocyanin (PC), a unique accessory pigment strongly correlating with the biomass in cyanobacteria [97].
Satellite monitoring is valuable for evaluating cyanobacterial biomass, but not the amount of toxins in the water [90].Photobioreactors for the Monitoring of Cyanobacteria are created based on in vivo fluorescence spectroscopy [98], where changes in autofluorescence of cyanobacterial cultures are detected to provide primary analysis of the aquatic ecosystem behavior. Future development of devices based on this methodology would provide information beyond optical density measurements on the behavior of the aquatic populations of toxogenic cyanobacteria.

3. Key Highlights

This review explores the various methodologies used to monitor and predict toxic cyanobacterial blooms, highlighting the trade-offs between precision, speed, and cost. A 2024 study [99] compared several monitoring techniques against LC-MS/MS, which is considered the “gold standard” for accuracy (Table 3). While all methods showed significant correlation with microcystin levels, those targeting specific toxins or genes provided the most reliable results.
In terms of predictive modeling, beyond direct detection, machine learning has emerged as a tool for forecasting blooms up to two weeks in advance [100]. However, these models face significant hurdles—they require massive datasets for training, and high computational costs make them currently impractical for many real-world applications.
On top of that, the expansion of research into understudied regions experiences significant challenges. Unlike well-funded regions that utilize integrated satellite and molecular monitoring, developing countries face limited analytical infrastructure, which is expensive and requires specialized technical expertise (technological gaps in early warning, and lack of legal frameworks for monitoring cyanobacteria biomass and cyanotoxin concentrations in drinking and ambient water [101]). Moreover, subtropical and tropical climates, dominant in many developing regions, foster year-round bloom persistence. This increased duration, coupled with high anthropogenic nutrient loading, creates a continuous exposure risk that traditional seasonal monitoring fails to capture [5].
In summary, while newer technologies like ML and genotyping offer high precision and foresight, traditional methods like microscopy and satellite monitoring remain essential for biomass quantification and broad public-health warnings.

4. Conclusions

Protecting human and animal populations and ecosystems from the adverse effects of harmful cyanobacterial blooms requires proactive early warning systems.
With the global rise in bloom intensity, transitioning from reactive management to sophisticated, predictive monitoring is vital for ecosystem resilience. Even in the post-bloom period, the presence of toxins in the environment poses a danger to animal and human health, which makes their establishment in the environment even more urgent. Assessing cyanotoxin contamination in water and food, particularly in developing countries, still requires further research, including studies aimed at the simultaneous detection of multiple cyanotoxin types [102]. As established in this review, a diverse array of methodologies is available for the detection of cyanobacterial toxins, each characterized by specific technical strengths and constraints. Consistently, reported toxin concentrations surpass the World Health Organization’s provisional tolerable daily intake, signaling a persistent risk to public health. However, a critical limitation of current early warning systems remains: most analytical methods provide a snapshot of existing toxicity, without the predictive capacity to forecast future toxicological developments. Nevertheless, the early detection of cyanotoxins remains valuable and sufficiently timely to mitigate adverse impacts on public health and the economy. Methods that have demonstrated potential for predicting future toxic algal blooms include PCR-based approaches such as qPCR and machine learning models, which allow the integration of multiple variables for effective early warning and risk management.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.I.; methodology, D.I. and M.P.; investigation, M.P.; resources, M.P.; writing—original draft preparation, M.P.; writing—review and editing, M.P., D.I. and M.N.; visualization, M.P.; supervision, D.I. and M.N.; project administration, D.I.; funding acquisition, D.I. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the European Union-NextGenerationEU, through the National Recovery and Resilience Plan of the Republic of Bulgaria, project No BG-RRP-2.004-0009-C02 (MUVE-TEAM).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

ALTAlanine Aminotransferase
ASTAspartate Aminotransferase
ATXAnatoxin-a
Caco-2Colon Cells
CATCatalase
CHO-K1Chinese Hamster Ovary Cells
CYNCylindrospermopsins
CYPCytochrome P450
DADomoic Acid
ECV304Human Endothelial Cells
ELISAEnzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay
EREndoplasmic Reticulum
FITCFluorescein Isothiocyanate
FPFluorescent Polarization
FPIAFluorescence Polarization Immunoassay
GPX1Glutathione Peroxidase 1
GSHGlutathione
GSTGlutathione S-Transferase
HEK293Human Embryonic Kidney 293 Cells
HepG2Human Liver Cancer Cells
HIEC-6Human Intestinal Cells
MCMicrocystins
MLMachine Learning
MTT3-(4,5-Dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-Diphenyltetrazolium Bromide
NODNodularins
OAOkadaic Acid
PCRPolymerase Chain Reaction
PPProtein Phosphatases
PPIAProtein Phosphatase Inhibitory Assay
qPCRquantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction
ROSReactive Oxygen Species
SODSuperoxide Dismutase
STXSaxitoxin
Vero-E6Renal Cell Line
WHOWord Health Organization

References

  1. Stoyneva-Gärtner, M.; Stefanova, K.; Descy, J.-P.; Uzunov, B.; Radkova, M.; Pavlova, V.; Mitreva, M.; Gärtner, G. Microcystis aeruginosa and M. wesenbergii were the primary planktonic microcystin producers in several Bulgarian waterbodies (August 2019). Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Ivanov, D.; Yaneva, G.; Potoroko, I.; Ivanova, D.G. Contribution of cyanotoxins to the ecotoxicological role of lichens. Toxins 2021, 13, 321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. World Health Organization (WHO). WHO/HEP/ECH/WSH/2020.6; Cyanobacterial Toxins: Microcystins. Background Document for the Development of WHO Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality and Guidelines for Safe Recreational Water Environments. WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020.
  4. Rodriguez Uro, V.H.; Azevedo, J.; Araújo, M.J.; Silva, R.; Bedoya, J.; Paredes, B.; Ranilla, C.; Vasconcelos, V.; Campos, A. New Report of Cyanobacteria and Cyanotoxins in El Pañe Reservoir: A Threat for Water Quality in High-Andean Sources from Peru. Toxins 2024, 16, 378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Schneider, M.P.C.; Cunha, E.; Silva, L.; Leão, J.; Tavares, V.C.; Brabo de Sousa, E.; Faustino, S. Cyanobacterial Blooms and the Presence of Cyanotoxins in the Brazilian Amazon. Toxins 2025, 17, 296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Sanseverino, I.; Pretto, P.; António, D.C.; Lahm, A.; Facca, C.; Loos, R.; Skejo, H.; Beghi, A.; Pandolfi, F.; Genoni, P.; et al. Metagenomics analysis to investigate microbial communities during cyanobacterial blooms in Lake Varese. Microb. Ecol. 2021, 83, 850–868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Hernández Mariné, M.; Clavero, E.; Roldán, M. Microscopy Methods Applied to Research on Cyanobacteria. Limnetica 2004, 23, 179–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Chorus, I.; Welker, M. (Eds.) Toxic Cyanobacteria in Water: A Guide to Their Public Health Consequences, Monitoring and Management, 2nd ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kezlya, E.; Mironova, E.; Voyakina, E.; Kravchenko, S.; Mironov, A.; Kuzmin, V.; Chernova, E.; Iurmanov, A.; Maltsev, Y.; Kulikovskiy, M. Cyanobacteria in Waterbodies of the Biggest Anthropogenic Agglomeration: Combined DNA Metabarcoding, Microscopy, and Culture Analysis. Phycology 2025, 5, 88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Preece, E.P.; Otten, T.G.; Cooke, J. Use of Multiple Sampling Techniques for Cyanobacteria and Cyanotoxin Monitoring in the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta under Different Hydrologic Regimes. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2024, 205, 116585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Humbert, J.F. Molecular tools for the detection of toxigenic cyanobacteria in natural ecosystems. In Handbook of Cyanobacterial Monitoring and Cyanotoxin Analysis; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2017; pp. 280–283. [Google Scholar]
  12. Moreira, C.; Matos, A.; Mendes, R.; Antunes, A. Plant toxins. In Toxins; Gopalakrishnakone, P., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2015; pp. 1–23. [Google Scholar]
  13. Fergusson, K.M.; Saint, C.P. Multiplex PCR assay for Cylindrospermopsis raciborskii and cylindrospermopsin-producing cyanobacteria. Environ. Toxicol. 2003, 18, 120–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Moreira, C.; Gomes, C.; Vasconcelos, V.; Antunes, A. Cyanotoxin occurrence in Portugal: A new report on their recent multiplication. Toxins 2020, 12, 154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Rinta-Kanto, J.M.; Ouellette, A.J.A.; Boyer, G.L.; Twiss, M.R.; Bridgeman, T.B.; Wilhelm, S.W. Quantification of toxic Microcystis spp. during 2003–2004 blooms in Lake Erie using real-time PCR. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2005, 39, 4198–4205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Churro, C.; Pereira, P.; Vasconcelos, V.; Valério, E. Species-specific real-time PCR cell number quantification of the bloom-forming cyanobacterium Planktothrix agardhii. Arch. Microbiol. 2012, 194, 749–757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Singh, S.; Srivastava, A.; Oh, H.-M.; Ahn, C.-Y.; Choi, G.-G.; Asthana, R.K. Recent trends in development of biosensors for detection of microcystin. Toxicon 2012, 60, 878–894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Hammoud, N.A.; Zervou, S.K.; Kaloudis, T.; Christophoridis, C.; Paraskevopoulou, A.; Triantis, T.M.; Slim, K.; Szpunar, J.; Fadel, A.; Lobinski, R. Investigation of cyanotoxins in Lake Karaoun (Lebanon) by mass spectrometry, bioassays and molecular methods. Toxins 2021, 13, 716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Žegura, B.; Gajski, G.; Štraser, A.; Garaj-Vrhovac, V. Cylindrospermopsin-induced DNA damage and gene expression alterations in response to apoptosis and oxidative stress. Toxicon 2011, 58, 471–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Štraser, A.; Filipič, M.; Žegura, B. Genotoxic effects of cylindrospermopsin in HepG2 cells. Arch. Toxicol. 2011, 85, 1617–1626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Bain, P.; Shaw, G.; Patel, B. Induction of p53-regulated genes in human cells exposed to cylindrospermopsin. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health 2007, 70, 1687–1693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Diez-Quijada, L.; Puerto, M.; Gutiérrez-Praena, D.; Turkina, M.V.; Campos, A.; Vasconcelos, V.; Cameán, A.M.; Jos, Á. In vitro toxicity of cylindrospermopsin and microcystin-LR in human kidney HEK293 cells. Toxins 2022, 14, 429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Lu, J.; Struewing, I.; Wymer, L.; Tettenhorst, D.; Shoemaker, J.; Allen, J. qPCR and RT-qPCR monitoring of microcystin producers as an early warning system. Water Res. 2020, 170, 115262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Metcalf, J.S.; Bell, S.G.; Codd, G.A. Production of polyclonal antibodies for detection of microcystins and nodularin. Water Res. 2000, 34, 2761–2769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Sheng, J.-W.; He, M.; Shi, H.-C.; Qian, Y. Comprehensive immunoassay for microcystins in waters using polyclonal antibodies. Anal. Chim. Acta 2006, 572, 309–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Bauer, F.; Wolfschlaeger, I.; Geist, J.; Fastner, J.; Schmalz, C.W.; Raeder, U. Occurrence, distribution and toxins of benthic cyanobacteria in German lakes. Toxics 2023, 11, 643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Foss, A.J.; Miles, C.O.; Samdal, I.A. Free and metabolized microcystins in samples from a bird mortality event. Harmful Algae 2018, 80, 117–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Baralla, E.; Varoni, M.V.; Sedda, T. Microcystins Presence in Mussels (M. galloprovincialis) and Water of Two Productive Mediterranean’s Lagoons (Sardinia, Italy). Biomed Res. Int. 2017, 2017, 3769245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Preece, E.P.; Moore, B.C.; Hardy, F.J. Transfer of microcystin from lakes to Puget Sound and accumulation in Mytilus trossulus. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2015, 122, 98–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Moore, C.E.; Juan, J.; Lin, Y.P.; Gaskill, C.L.; Puschner, B. Comparison of PPIA and LC-MS/MS for diagnosis of microcystin toxicosis in animals. Mar. Drugs 2016, 14, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Liu, J.; Xing, Y.; Lin, Y.; Xie, Y.; Zhou, X. Effect of Pretreatment Approach on the ELISA-Based Detection of Cyanotoxins in Water: Analysis and Application. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 871, 161988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Woodruff, P.; McNeely, M.; Sanan, T.; Dugan, N. Analysis of Microcystins in Alum Water Treatment Sludges: Holding Times, Temperatures, Linearity of Response, and Sensitivity to Pre-Coagulation Cell Titers. Environ. Technol. 2024, 45, 194–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Adams, K.; Clauson, K.; Adams, W.A.; Labiosa, R.G.; McBride, T.; Borisenko, A.; Dyer, S.W.; Fairchild, N.; Pepich, B.V. The Evaluation of a New ELISA-Based Kit for Total Microcystins as an Early Detection Tool for Microcystin Blooms in Source Waters and Its Application State-Wide to Oregon Source and Finished Drinking Waters. Toxins 2025, 17, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Fan, L.; Huang, J.; Lo, C.Y.; Zhou, B.; Fu, X. Simplified Validation of the ELISA Kit Determination of Microcystins in Surface Water. Water Sci. Technol. 2022, 85, 900–913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Charapata, P.; Bowers, E.K.; Hardison, D.R.; Kibler, S.; Anderson, D.M.; Fachon, E.; Lefebvre, K.A. Paralytic Shellfish Toxin Concentrations Measured in Alaskan Arctic Clams Using ELISA and HPLC Methods. Toxins 2025, 17, 60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Van Hemert, C.; Schoen, S.K.; Litaker, R.W.; Smith, M.M.; Arimitsu, M.L.; Piatt, J.F.; Holland, W.C.; Hardison, D.R.; Pearce, J.M. Algal Toxins in Alaskan Seabirds: Evaluating the Role of Saxitoxin and Domoic Acid in a Large-Scale Die-Off of Common Murres. Harmful Algae 2020, 92, 101730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Li, Y.; Whitaker, J.S.; Skibbe, S.A.; Piaskowski, M.A. Microwave Cell Lysis for ADDA-ELISA Analysis of Total Microcystins and Nodularins. AWWA Water Sci. 2020, 2, e1215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Zhang, H.; Yang, S.; Beier, R.C.; Beloglazova, N.V.; Lei, H.; Sun, X.; Ke, Y.; Zhang, S.; Wang, Z. Fluorescence polarization immunoassay for microcystins and nodularin-R. Anal. Chim. Acta 2017, 992, 119–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Lei, L.M.; Wu, Y.S.; Gan, N.Q.; Song, L.R. An ELISA-like Time-resolved fluorescence immunoassay for microcystin detection. Clin. Chim. Acta 2004, 348, 177–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Xu, Z.-L.; Ye, S.-L.; Luo, L.; Hua, X.; Lai, J.X.; Cai, X.P.; Liang, Q.W.; Lei, H.T.; Sun, Y.M. Carbon-dot immunoassay for MC-LR detection in water and fish. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 708, 134614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Smirnova, M.M. Microcystins in the Curonian Lagoon littoral zone: Immunochromatographic data. Mar. Biol. J. 2019, 4, 109–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Zhang, H.; Luo, J.; Beloglazova, N.; De Saeger, S.; Florea, A.; Jiang, Y.; Shen, J.; Wang, Z. Portable Multiplex Immunochromatographic Assay for Algal Toxins. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2019, 67, 6041–6047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Cevallos-Cedeño, R.E.; Quiñones-Reyes, G.; Agulló, C.; Bovi, M.; Bogeat, N.; Kharrat, R.; Diogène, J.; Caixach, J.; Andrada, L.; Campàs, M. Rapid Immunochemical Methods for Anatoxin-a Monitoring. Anal. Chem. 2022, 94, 10857–10864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Zvereva, E.A.; Hendrickson, O.D.; Solopova, O.N.; Sakharov, I.Y. Triple Immunochromatographic Test for Aquatic Toxins. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2022, 414, 7553–7563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Almeida, V.P.S.; Cogo, K.; Tsai, S.M.; Moon, D.H. A Colorimetric Test for Microcystins in Southeast Brazil. Braz. J. Microbiol. 2006, 37, 192–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Heresztyn, T.; Nicholson, B.C. Direct Determination of Hepatotoxins in Water by PPIA. Water Res. 2001, 35, 3049–3056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Covaci, O.I.; Sassolas, A.; Alonso, G.A.; Fournier, D.; Marty, J.-L. Sensitive Detection and Discrimination of MC-LR and MC-YR via PP + ANN. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2012, 404, 711–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Merel, S.; Walker, D.; Chicana, R.; Snyder, S.; Baurès, E.; Thomas, O. State of Knowledge on Cyanobacterial Blooms and Cyanotoxins. Environ. Int. 2013, 59, 303–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Rapala, J.; Erkomaa, K.; Kukkonen, J.; Sivonen, K.; Lahti, K. Detection of Microcystins Using PPIA, HPLC-UV and ELISA. Anal. Chim. Acta 2002, 466, 213–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Metcalf, J.S.; Bell, S.G.; Codd, G.A. Colorimetric Immuno-PPIA for Microcystins and Nodularins. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2001, 67, 904–909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Jones, M.R.; Janssen, E.M.L. Quantification of Multi-Class Cyanopeptides in Swiss Lakes with Automated Extraction, Enrichment and Analysis by Online-SPE HPLC-HRMS/MS. Chimia 2022, 76, 133–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Stoyneva-Gärtner, M.P.; Uzunov, B.A.; Descy, J.-P.; Gärtner, G.; Draganova, P.H.; Borisova, C.I.; Pavlova, V.; Mitreva, M. Pilot Application of Drone Observations and Pigment Marker Detection by HPLC in Studies of Cyanobacterial Harmful Algal Blooms in Bulgarian Inland Waters. Mar. Freshw. Res. 2020, 71, 606–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Shoi, J.W.; Jang, J.H.; Lee, S.H.; Yoon, M.A. Determination of Cylindrospermopsin in Surface and Treated Water Using Liquid Chromatography–Tandem Mass Spectrometry. J. Environ. Anal. Health Toxicol. 2022, 25, 71–76. [Google Scholar]
  54. Sundaravadivelu, D.; Sanan, T.T.; Venkatapathy, R.; Mash, H.; Tettenhorst, D.; D’Anglada, L.; Lazorchak, J. Determination of Cyanotoxins and Prymnesins in Water, Fish Tissue, and Other Matrices: A Review. Toxins 2022, 14, 213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Yang, J.; Si, R.; Wu, G.; Wang, Y.; Fang, R.; Liu, F.; Wang, F.; Lei, H.; Shen, Y.; Zhang, Q.; et al. Preparation of Specific Nanobodies and Their Application in the Rapid Detection of Nodularin-R in Water Samples. Foods 2021, 10, 2758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Kurniawan, R.; Nurkolis, F.; Taslim, N.A.; Subali, D.; Surya, R.; Gunawan, W.B.; Alisaputra, D.; Mayulu, N.; Salindeho, N.; Kim, B. Carotenoids Composition of Green Algae Caulerpa racemosa and Their Antidiabetic, Anti-Obesity, Antioxidant, and Anti-Inflammatory Properties. Molecules 2023, 28, 3267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Amado, L.L.; Monserrat, J.M. Oxidative Stress Generation by Microcystins in Aquatic Animals. Environ. Int. 2010, 36, 226–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Lushchak, V.I. Environmentally Induced Oxidative Stress in Aquatic Animals. Aquat. Toxicol. 2011, 101, 13–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Silva de Assis, H.C.; da Silva, C.A.; Oba, E.T.; Ramsdorf, W.A.; Cestari, M.M.; Randi, M.A.F.; Dietrich, D.; de Almeida, M.I.M.; Ribeiro, C.A.O. Hematologic and Hepatic Responses of Fish to Saxitoxin. Toxicon 2013, 66, 25–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Pham, T.-L.; Shimizu, K.; Dao, T.-S.; Hong-Do, L.-C.; Utsumi, M. Microcystin Uptake and Responses in the Clam Corbicula leana. Toxicol. Rep. 2015, 2, 88–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Ruibal-Conti, A.L.; Ruiz, M.A.; Rodriguez, M.I.; Lerda, D.; Romero, M.D. Assessment of specific antibodies as biological indicators of human chronic exposure to microcystins. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2019, 175, 236–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Falconer, I.R. Tumor promotion and liver injury caused by oral consumption of cyanobacteria. Environ. Toxicol. 1991, 6, 177–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Vasconcelos, V.M. Cyanobacterial toxins in Portugal: Effects on aquatic animals and risk for human health. Braz. J. Med. Biol. Res. 1999, 32, 249–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Osswald, J.; Rellán, S.; Carvalho, A.P.; Gago, A.; Vasconcelos, V. Acute effects of an anatoxin-a producing cyanobacterium on juvenile fish—Cyprinus carpio L. Toxicon 2007, 49, 693–698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Osswald, J.; Carvalho, A.; Claro, J.; Vasconcelos, V. Effects of cyanobacterial extracts containing anatoxin-a and of pure anatoxin-a on early developmental stages of carp. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2009, 72, 473–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Buratti, F.M.; Manganelli, M.; Vichi, S.; Stefanelli, M.; Scardala, S.; Testai, M.; Funari, E. Cyanotoxins: Producing organisms, occurrence, toxicity, mechanism of action and human health toxicological risk evaluation. Arch. Toxicol. 2017, 91, 1049–1130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Azevedo, C.C.; Azevedo, J.; Osório, H.; Vasconcelos, V.; Campos, A. Early physiological and biochemical responses of rice seedlings to low concentration of microcystin-LR. Ecotoxicology 2014, 23, 107–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Machado, J.; Azevedo, J.; Freitas, M.; Pinto, E.; Vasconcelos, V.; Campos, A. Analysis of the use of microcystin-contaminated water in the growth and nutritional quality of the root-vegetable, Daucus carota. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2017, 24, 752–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Pereira, S.; Saker, M.L.; Vale, M.; Vasconcelos, V.M. Comparison of sensitivity of grasses (Lolium perenne L. and Festuca rubra L.) and Lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) exposed to water contaminated with microcystins. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2009, 83, 81–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Freitas, M.; Azevedo, J.; Pinto, E.; Neves, J.; Campos, A.; Vasconcelos, V. Effects of microcystin-LR, cylindrospermopsin and amicrocystin-LR/cylindrospermopsin mixture on growth, oxidative stress and mineral content in lettuce plants (Lactuca sativa L.). Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2015, 116, 59–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Llana-Ruiz-Cabello, M.; Jos, A.; Cameán, A.; Oliveira, F.; Barreiro, A.; Machado, J.; Azevedo, J.; Pinto, E.; Almeida, A.; Campos, A. Analysis of the use of cylindrospermopsin and/or microcystin-contaminated water in the growth, mineral content, and contamination of Spinacia oleracea and Lactuca sativa. Toxins 2019, 11, 624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Dias, E.; Andrade, M.; Alverca, E.; Pereira, P.; Batoreu, M.C.C.; Jordan, P.; Silva, M.J. Comparative study of the cytotoxic effect of microcistin-LR and purified extracts from Microcystis aeruginosa on a kidney cell line. Toxicon 2009, 53, 487–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Dias, E.; Matos, P.; Pereira, P.; Batoréu, M.C.; Silva, M.J.; Jordan, P. Microcystin-LR activates the ERK1/2 kinases and stimulates the proliferation of the monkey kidney-derived cell line Vero-E6. Toxicol. In Vitro 2010, 24, 1689–1695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Kuşoğlu Gültekin, S.; Mertoğlu Kamalı, E.; Yılancıoğlu, K.; Arda, N. Dose-dependent cytotoxic and proliferative effects of Microcystis aeruginosa extract and its fractions on human endotelial cells. Aquat. Res. 2022, 5, 117–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Vankova, D.G.; Kiselova-Kaneva, Y.D.; Tasinov, O.B.; Nashar, M.A.; Uzunov, B.A.; Stoyneva-Gärtner, M.P.; Ivanov, D.L.; Ivanova, D.G. Blooming freshwater effects on viability of human intestinal epithelial cells. In Proceedings of the NuGOweek 2022, Tarragona, Spain, 29 August–1 September 2022. [Google Scholar]
  76. Chichova, M.; Tasinov, O.; Shkodrova, M.; Mishonova, M.; Sazdova, I.; Ilieva, B.; Doncheva-Stoimenova, D.; Kiselova-Kaneva, Y.; Raikova, N.; Uzunov, B. New data on cylindrospermopsin toxicity. Toxins 2021, 13, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Froscio, S.M.; Cannon, E.; Lau, H.M.; Humpage, A.R. Limited uptake of the cyanobacterial toxin cylindrospermopsin by Vero cells. Toxicon 2009, 54, 862–868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Froscio, S.M.; Fanok, S.; Humpage, A.R. Cytotoxicity screening for the cyanobacterial toxin cylindrospermopsin. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health Part A 2009, 72, 345–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Gacsi, M.; Antal, O.; Vasas, G.; Mathe, C.; Borbely, G.; Saker, M.L. Comparative study of cyanotoxins affecting cytoskeletal and chromatinstructures in CHOK1 cells. Toxicol. In Vitro 2009, 23, 710–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Casas-Rodríguez, A.; Cebadero-Domínguez, Ó.; Puerto, M.; Cameán, A.M.; Jos, A. Immunomodulatory Effects of Cylindrospermopsin in Human T Cells and Monocytes. Toxins 2023, 15, 301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Hinojosa, M.G.; Cascajosa-Lira, A.; Prieto, A.I.; Gutiérrez-Praena, D.; Vasconcelos, V.; Jos, A.; Cameán, A.M. Cytotoxic Effects and Oxidative Stress Produced by a Cyanobacterial Cylindrospermopsin Producer Extract versus a Cylindrospermopsin Non-Producing Extract on the Neuroblastoma SH-SY5Y Cell Line. Toxins 2023, 15, 320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Casas-Rodríguez, A.; Cascajosa-Lira, A.; Puerto, M.; Cameán, A.M.; Jos, A. In Silico and In Vitro Evaluation of Potential Agonistic and Antagonistic Estrogenic and Androgenic Activities of Pure Cyanotoxins, Microcystin-LR and Cylindrospermopsin. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2025, 289, 117456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Menezes, C.; Alverca, E.; Dias, E.; Sam-Bento, F.; Pereira, P. Involvement of endoplasmic reticulum and autophagy in microcystin-LR toxicity in Vero-E6 and HepG2 cell lines. Toxicol. In Vitro 2013, 7, 138–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Dias, E.; Louro, H.; Pinto, M.; Santos, T.; Antunes, S.; Pereira, P.; Silva, M.J. Genotoxicity of microcystin-LR in in vitro and in vivo experimental models. BioMed Res. Int. 2014, 2014, 949521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Miguéns, D.; Valério, E. The impact of some microcystins on the growth of heterotrophic bacteria from Portuguese freshwater reservoir. Limnetica 2015, 34, 215–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Park, Y.; Lee, H.K.; Shin, J.K.; Chon, K.; Kim, S.; Cho, K.H.; Kim, J.H.; Baek, S.S. A Machine Learning Approach for EarlyWarning of Cyanobacterial Bloom Outbreaks in a Freshwater Reservoir. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 288, 112415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Villanueva, P.; Yang, J.; Radmer, L.; Liang, X.; Leung, T.; Ikuma, K.; Swanner, E.D.; Howe, A.; Lee, J. One-Week-Ahead Prediction of Cyanobacterial Harmful Algal Blooms in Iowa Lakes. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2023, 57, 20636–20646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Kianian, I.; Mottaqi, M.S.; Mohammadipanah, F.; Sajedi, H. Automated Identification of Toxigenic Cyanobacterial Genera for Water Quality Control Purposes. J. Environ. Manag. 2024, 362, 121274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Topaloglu, F.; Kiziloluk, S.; Sert, E.; Yildirim, M. Automatic Detection of Harmful Cyanobacterial Genera Using Deep CNN Models and Artemisinin Optimization. Sci. Rep. 2025, 15, 33824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Grant, L.; Botelho, D.; Rehman, A. Early Detection Methods for Toxic Cyanobacteria Blooms. Pathogens 2024, 13, 1047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. LeDuc, J.F.; Christensen, V.G.; Maki, R.P. Rapid-Assessment Test Strips: Effectiveness for Cyanotoxin Monitoring in a Northern Temperate Lake. Lake Reserv. Manag. 2020, 36, 444–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Aranda-Rodriguez, R.; Jin, Z.; Harvie, J.; Cabecinha, A. Evaluation of Three Field Test Kits to Detect Microcystins from a Public Health Perspective. Harmful Algae 2015, 42, 34–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Potvin, M.; Gauthier, J.; Langevin, C.; Mohit, V.; da Costa, N.B.; Deschênes, T.; Pomerleau, M.; Kukavica-Ibrulj, I.; Verreault, D.; Comte, J.; et al. Rapid On-Site Detection of Harmful Algal Blooms: Real-Time Cyanobacteria Identification Using Oxford Nanopore Sequencing. Front. Microbiol. 2023, 14, 1267652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Hasan, R.; Smith, M.; Wang, S. A Portable RPA-CRISPR/Cas12a-Based Biosensing Platform for On-Site Detection of the Microcystin Synthetase E Gene in Lake Water. bioRxiv 2025. bioRxiv:2025.07.11.664500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Bickman, S.R.; Campbell, K.; Elliott, C.; Murphy, C.; O’Kennedy, R.; Papst, P.; Lochhead, M.J. An Innovative Portable Biosensor System for the Rapid Detection of Freshwater Cyanobacterial Algal Bloom Toxins. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018, 52, 11691–11698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Liu, J.; Xing, Y.; Xue, B.; Zhou, X. Nanozyme-Enhanced Paper-Based Biochip with a Smartphone Readout System for Rapid Detection of Cyanotoxins in Water. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2022, 205, 114099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Woźniak, M.; Bradtke, K.M.; Darecki, M.; Krężel, A. Empirical Model for Phycocyanin Concentration Estimation as an Indicator of Cyanobacterial Bloom in the Optically Complex Coastal Waters of the Baltic Sea. Remote Sens. 2016, 8, 212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. García García, B.; Fernández-Manteca, M.G.; Gómez-Galdós, C.; Deus Álvarez, S.; Monteoliva, A.P.; López-Higuera, J.M.; Algorri, J.F.; Ocampo-Sosa, A.A.; Rodríguez-Cobo, L.; Cobo, A. Integration of Fluorescence Spectroscopy into a Photobioreactor for the Monitoring of Cyanobacteria. Biosensors 2025, 15, 128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Schürmann, Q.J.F.; Visser, P.M.; Sollie, S.; Kardinaal, W.E.A.; Faassen, E.J.; Lokmani, R.; van der Oost, R.; van de Waal, D.B. Risk Assessment of Toxic Cyanobacterial Blooms in Recreational Waters: A Comparative Study of Monitoring Methods. Harmful Algae 2024, 138, 102683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Gupta, A.; Hantush, M.M.; Govindaraju, R.S. Sub-Monthly Time Scale Forecasting of Harmful Algal Bloom Intensity in Lake Erie Using Remote Sensing and Machine Learning. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 900, 165781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Maniyar, C.B.; Raviprakash, K.; Kumar, A.; Seferian, M.A.; Fiorentino, I.R.; Mishra, D.R. Low-Cost System to Support and Expand Cyanobacterial Harmful Algal Bloom Monitoring with New-Generation Ocean Color Satellites. ACS ES&T Water 2025, 5, 6246–6257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Abdallah, M.F.; Van Hhassel, W.H.R.; Andjelkovic, M.; Wilmotte, A.; Rajkovic, A. Cyanotoxins and food contamination in developing countries: Review of their types, toxicity, analysis, occurrence and mitigation strategies. Toxins 2021, 13, 786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table 1. ELISA method used to detect cyanotoxins.
Table 1. ELISA method used to detect cyanotoxins.
CyanotoxinExtraction/Sample PreparationDetected AmountLocationReference
Microcystin, NodularinsFiltration, centrifugation, dilution, freeze–thaw pre-treatment0.21–1.05 μg/LLake water, river water, tap water, ChinaLiu et al., 2023 [31]
Microcystin-LRVacuum filtration, simple freeze–thaw, centrifugation0.63 ± 0.3 μg/LRiver water, USAWoodruff et al., 2024
[32]
Microcystins, NodularinThree freeze–thaw cycles, filtrationNot specifiedDrinking water, USAAdams et al., 2025
[33]
MicrocystinsFiltration, freeze–thaw pre-treatment0.68–2.58 μg/LReservoir water, lake water, ChinaFan et al., 2022 [34]
SaxitoxinsHomogenization, filtration0.35–215.57 μg/100gClams from the Alaskan Arctic Charapata et al., 2025 [35]
SaxitoxinsHomogenization, filtration30.5 µg/100 gSeabirds, Gulf of Alaska Van Hemert et al., 2020 [36]
MicrocystinsMicrowave treatment0.3–2.0 μg/LDrinking water, ambient water (Lake Erie) USA Li et al., 2020 [37]
SaxitoxinsNot specified0.59 µg/LBenthic algae from lake water (Germany)Bauer et al., 2023
[26]
Table 2. In vitro cytotoxicity studies conducted with cylindrospermopsin.
Table 2. In vitro cytotoxicity studies conducted with cylindrospermopsin.
Experimental ModelMethodExperimental ConditionsResultsReference
2 HepG2; 3 Caco-2MTT test 10.4–66 μM, 1, 2, 4, 6, 24 h exposureIC50 is 1.5 μM for HepG2 at 24 h exposure. IC50 is 6.5 μM for Caco-2 at 24 h exposureFroscio et al., 2009 b [78]
4 CHO-K15 FITC analysis0.1–10 μM, 12, 18, 24, 48 h exposureApoptosis at concentrations 1–2 μM and 12 h exposure. Necrosis at concentrations 5–10 μM and 24–48 h exposureGacsi et al., 2009 [79]
6 THP-1 and 7 Jurkat cellsMTT test0.001–10 μM, 24, 48 h exposureIC50 were 5.2 μM for Jurkat cells for 24 h and 2.32 μM for 48 h.
In both cells, the exposure to CYN caused a viability decrease from 1 to 10 μM
Casas-Rodríguez et al., 2023 [80]
8 SH-SY5YMTT test1–10 μg CYN/mL 24, 48 h exposureIC50 were 1.11 μg/mL for 24 h and 0.69 μg/mL for 48 h. Cell viability decreases upon treatment with 5 μg CYN/mLHinojosa et al., 2023 [81]
9 hERα-HeLa-9903Cell Counting Kit- 8 and MTS assaysMC-LR 20–200 μM
and CYN 0.5–3 μM 24 h exposure
The highest tested concentration of MC-LR (200 μM) significantly reduces cell viability. For CYN, a significant decrease in viability is observed at 2.5 and 3 μMCasas-Rodríguez et al., 2025 [82]
1 MTT–3-(4,5-Dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-Diphenyltetrazolium Bromide; 2 HepG2—human liver cancer cells; 3 Caco-2—colon cells; 4 CHO-K1—Chinese hamster ovary cells; 5 FITC analysis—Fluorescein Isothiocyanate analysis; 6 THP-1—human leukemia monocytic cell line; 7 Jurkat cells—human T-lymphocyte cell line; 8 SH-SY5Y—human neuroblastoma cell line; 9 hERα-HeLa-9903—human cervical cancer cell line.
Table 3. Comparison of detection methods.
Table 3. Comparison of detection methods.
MethodPrimary Data ProvidedKey Advantages/Uses
LC-MS/MSPrecise toxin concentrationThe “gold standard” for microcystin detection.
ELISAToxin presence/levelsStrong correlation with gold standard; toxin-specific.
qPCR (Genotyping)Precision taxonomy and toxin genesIdentifies the genetic potential for toxin production.
MicroscopyCell counts and taxonomyPredicts toxin type and quantifies biomass, via counting.
FluorometryLife cycle and ecosystem dataTracks cyanobacteria behavior within the aquatic system.
Satellite MonitoringBiomass densityServes as a public health early-warning system.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Pasheva, M.; Nashar, M.; Ivanova, D. Recent Progress in the Detection and Monitoring of Toxin-Producing Cyanoprokaryotes and Their Toxins. Toxics 2026, 14, 86. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics14010086

AMA Style

Pasheva M, Nashar M, Ivanova D. Recent Progress in the Detection and Monitoring of Toxin-Producing Cyanoprokaryotes and Their Toxins. Toxics. 2026; 14(1):86. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics14010086

Chicago/Turabian Style

Pasheva, Milena, Milka Nashar, and Diana Ivanova. 2026. "Recent Progress in the Detection and Monitoring of Toxin-Producing Cyanoprokaryotes and Their Toxins" Toxics 14, no. 1: 86. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics14010086

APA Style

Pasheva, M., Nashar, M., & Ivanova, D. (2026). Recent Progress in the Detection and Monitoring of Toxin-Producing Cyanoprokaryotes and Their Toxins. Toxics, 14(1), 86. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics14010086

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop