1. Estrogenic effects of environmental chemicals: an interspecies comparison.
- Author
-
Olsen CM, Meussen-Elholm ET, Hongslo JK, Stenersen J, and Tollefsen KE
- Subjects
- Animals, Binding, Competitive drug effects, Biological Assay, Breast Neoplasms pathology, Cell Line, Tumor, Cell Proliferation drug effects, Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Environmental Pollutants metabolism, Estrogens, Non-Steroidal metabolism, Hepatocytes drug effects, Hepatocytes metabolism, Humans, Liver drug effects, Liver metabolism, Receptors, Estrogen metabolism, Vitellogenins metabolism, Environmental Monitoring methods, Environmental Pollutants toxicity, Estrogens, Non-Steroidal toxicity, Oncorhynchus mykiss, Receptors, Estrogen drug effects, Species Specificity
- Abstract
The development of various in vitro screening methods has led to identification of novel estrogenic chemicals of natural and anthropogenic origin. In this study, the (anti)estrogenic potential of several environmental chemicals were compared in an array of in vitro test systems comprising: (i) competitive binding to estrogen receptors derived from the human breast cancer cell line MCF-7 (hER) and rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) (rtER), (ii) a proliferation assay with MCF-7 cells (E-SCREEN), and iii) induction of vitellogenin (rtVtg) in isolated rainbow trout hepatocytes. The results showed substantial differences in assay sensitivity for potent estrogens like 17beta-estradiol, diethylstilbestrol and zearalenone (ranking order of sensitivity: E-SCREEN > hER approximately rtER approximately rtVtg). Chemicals like 4-n-nonylphenol and bisphenol A had higher relative binding affinity to the hER, whereas 4-t-butylphenol and 4-n-butylphenol showed highest affinity to the rtER. Zearalenone and the novel estrogen 4-t-butylhexanol displayed a considerable higher relative potency in the E-SCREEN than the rtVtg assay, whereas alkylphenols and the novel estrogen mimic 4-t-butyl-nitrobenzene were most potent in fish cells. Correlation analysis of data from the test systems suggest that interspecies differences is largely due to inter-assay variation of the ER-dependent cellular responses, whereas binding to the ER are fairly similar in the two species tested.
- Published
- 2005
- Full Text
- View/download PDF