Search

Bisphenol A (BPA) is one of the most commonly used substances in the manufacture of various everyday products. Growing concerns about its hazardous properties, including endocrine disruption and genotoxicity, have led to its gradual replacement by presumably safer analogues in manufacturing plastics. The widespread use of BPA and, more recently, its analogues has increased their residues in the environment. However, our knowledge of their toxicological profiles is limited and their combined effects are unknown. In the present study, we investigated the toxic effects caused by single bisphenols and by the combined exposure of BPA and its two analogues, BPAP and BPC, after short (24-h) and prolonged (96-h) exposure in HepG2 spheroids. The results showed that BPA did not reduce cell viability in HepG2 spheroids after 24-h exposure. In contrast, BPAP and BPC affected cell viability in HepG2 spheroids. Both binary mixtures (BPA/BPAP and BPA/BPC) decreased cell viability in a dose-dependent manner, but the significant difference was only observed for the combination of BPA/BPC (both at 40 µM). After 96-h exposure, none of the BPs studied affected cell viability in HepG2 spheroids. Only the combination of BPA/BPAP decreased cell viability in a dose-dependent manner that was significant for the combination of 4 µM BPA and 4 µM BPAP. None of the BPs and their binary mixtures studied affected the surface area and growth of spheroids as measured by planimetry. In addition, all BPs and their binary mixtures studied triggered oxidative stress, as measured by the production of reactive oxygen species and malondialdehyde, at both exposure times. Overall, the results suggest that it is important to study the effects of BPs as single compounds. It is even more important to study the effects of combined exposures, as the combined effects may differ from those induced by single compounds. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Faced with new and as yet unmet medical need, the stark underperformance of the pharmaceutical discovery process is well described if not perfectly understood. Driven primarily by profit rather than societal need, the search for new pharmaceutical products—small molecule drugs, biologicals, and vaccines—is neither properly funded nor sufficiently systematic. Many innovative approaches remain significantly underused and severely underappreciated, while dominant methodologies are replete with problems and limitations. Design is a component of drug discovery that is much discussed but seldom realised. In and of itself, technical innovation alone is unlikely to fulfil all the possibilities of drug discovery if the necessary underlying infrastructure remains unaltered. A fundamental revision in attitudes, with greater reliance on design powered by computational approaches, as well as a move away from the commercial imperative, is thus essential to capitalise fully on the potential of pharmaceutical intervention in healthcare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]