Quantitative Comparisons of in Vitro Assays for Estrogenic Activities

Substances that may act as estrogens show a broad chemical structural diversity. To thoroughly address the question of possible adverse estrogenic effects, reliable methods are needed to detect and identify the chemicals of these diverse structural classes. We compared three assays-in vitro estrogen...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Environmental health perspectives 2000-08, Vol.108 (8), p.723-729
Hauptverfasser: Fang, Hong, Tong, Weida, Perkins, Roger, Soto, Ana M., Prechtl, Nancy V., Sheehan, Daniel M.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 729
container_issue 8
container_start_page 723
container_title Environmental health perspectives
container_volume 108
creator Fang, Hong
Tong, Weida
Perkins, Roger
Soto, Ana M.
Prechtl, Nancy V.
Sheehan, Daniel M.
description Substances that may act as estrogens show a broad chemical structural diversity. To thoroughly address the question of possible adverse estrogenic effects, reliable methods are needed to detect and identify the chemicals of these diverse structural classes. We compared three assays-in vitro estrogen receptor competitive binding assays (ER binding assays), yeast-based reporter gene assays (yeast assays), and the MCF-7 cell proliferation assay (E-SCREEN assay)-to determine their quantitative agreement in identifying structurally diverse estrogens. We examined assay performance for relative sensitivity, detection of active/inactive chemicals, and estrogen/antiestrogen activities. In this examination, we combined individual data sets in a specific, quantitative data mining exercise. Data sets for at least 29 chemicals from five laboratories were analyzed pair-wise by X-Y plots. The ER binding assay was a good predictor for the other two assay results when the antiestrogens were excluded (r2 is 0.78 for the yeast assays and 0.85 for the E-SCREEN assays). Additionally, the examination strongly suggests that biologic information that is not apparent from any of the individual assays can be discovered by quantitative pair-wise comparisons among assays. Antiestrogens are identified as outliers in the ER binding/yeast assay, while complete antagonists are identified in the ER binding and E-SCREEN assays. Furthermore, the presence of outliers may be explained by different mechanisms that induce an endocrine response, different impurities in different batches of chemicals, different species sensitivity, or limitations of the assay techniques. Although these assays involve different levels of biologic complexity, the major conclusion is that they generally provided consistent information in quantitatively determining estrogenic activity for the five data sets examined. The results should provide guidance for expanded data mining examinations and the selection of appropriate assays to screen estrogenic endocrine disruptors.
doi_str_mv 10.1289/ehp.00108723
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_1638296</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A66354883</galeid><jstor_id>3434725</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>A66354883</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c6233-26813414b4463ea1888e10891ff1ef6b18ac4deae58e1f059b94723451abd0803</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqN0s1rFDEUAPBBFLtWb55lDioenJpMPia5CMuy1UKh-NVryMy-7KbMTNYkU-x_3ye7yi4UlBwCL7-8fLxXFC8pOaO10h9gsz0jhBLV1OxRMaNC1JXWNX9czAjRtJKNFCfFs5RuCDIl5dPihBIteaPrWbH8Mtkx-2yzv4VyEYatjT6FMZXBlX4sr32OoZynZO9S6UIslwkDaxh9V8473OSzh_S8eOJsn-DFfj4tfpwvvy8-V5dXny4W88uqkzVjVS0VZZzylnPJwFKlFODFNXWOgpMtVbbjK7AgMO6I0K3m-CouqG1XRBF2Wnzc5d1O7QCrDsYcbW-20Q823plgvTleGf3GrMOtoZKpWktM8HafIIafE6RsBp866Hs7QpiSoU1TN4Lyf0MuJBNUI3y_g2vbg_GjC3hwhx8EeH4YwXkMzyVirhRDXj3Acaxg8N1D_t2RR5LhV17bKSVz8e3rf9Or6yP65oBuwPZ5k0I_ZY-VP3L7x3UxpBTB_f1qSszv7jPYfeZP9yF_dVieA7xrNwSvd-Am5RAPk9WMNIZxhvUW7B7YHN5Q</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>14563519</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Quantitative Comparisons of in Vitro Assays for Estrogenic Activities</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>PubMed Central Open Access</source><source>JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Fang, Hong ; Tong, Weida ; Perkins, Roger ; Soto, Ana M. ; Prechtl, Nancy V. ; Sheehan, Daniel M.</creator><creatorcontrib>Fang, Hong ; Tong, Weida ; Perkins, Roger ; Soto, Ana M. ; Prechtl, Nancy V. ; Sheehan, Daniel M.</creatorcontrib><description>Substances that may act as estrogens show a broad chemical structural diversity. To thoroughly address the question of possible adverse estrogenic effects, reliable methods are needed to detect and identify the chemicals of these diverse structural classes. We compared three assays-in vitro estrogen receptor competitive binding assays (ER binding assays), yeast-based reporter gene assays (yeast assays), and the MCF-7 cell proliferation assay (E-SCREEN assay)-to determine their quantitative agreement in identifying structurally diverse estrogens. We examined assay performance for relative sensitivity, detection of active/inactive chemicals, and estrogen/antiestrogen activities. In this examination, we combined individual data sets in a specific, quantitative data mining exercise. Data sets for at least 29 chemicals from five laboratories were analyzed pair-wise by X-Y plots. The ER binding assay was a good predictor for the other two assay results when the antiestrogens were excluded (r2 is 0.78 for the yeast assays and 0.85 for the E-SCREEN assays). Additionally, the examination strongly suggests that biologic information that is not apparent from any of the individual assays can be discovered by quantitative pair-wise comparisons among assays. Antiestrogens are identified as outliers in the ER binding/yeast assay, while complete antagonists are identified in the ER binding and E-SCREEN assays. Furthermore, the presence of outliers may be explained by different mechanisms that induce an endocrine response, different impurities in different batches of chemicals, different species sensitivity, or limitations of the assay techniques. Although these assays involve different levels of biologic complexity, the major conclusion is that they generally provided consistent information in quantitatively determining estrogenic activity for the five data sets examined. The results should provide guidance for expanded data mining examinations and the selection of appropriate assays to screen estrogenic endocrine disruptors.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0091-6765</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1552-9924</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1289/ehp.00108723</identifier><identifier>PMID: 10964792</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. National Institutes of Health. Department of Health, Education and Welfare</publisher><subject>Agonists ; Binding, Competitive ; Biological Assay - standards ; Cell Division - drug effects ; Chemicals ; Data mining ; Datasets ; Environmental Exposure ; Environmental Pollutants - analysis ; Environmental Pollutants - toxicity ; Estrogen receptor modulators ; Estrogen receptors ; Estrogens ; Estrogens - analysis ; Estrogens - toxicity ; Genes, Reporter ; Humans ; Predictive Value of Tests ; Receptors, Estrogen - analysis ; reporter gene ; Reporter genes ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Steroids ; Yeasts ; Yeasts - drug effects</subject><ispartof>Environmental health perspectives, 2000-08, Vol.108 (8), p.723-729</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2000 National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c6233-26813414b4463ea1888e10891ff1ef6b18ac4deae58e1f059b94723451abd0803</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3434725$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/3434725$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,803,864,885,27924,27925,53791,53793,58017,58250</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10964792$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Fang, Hong</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tong, Weida</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Perkins, Roger</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Soto, Ana M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Prechtl, Nancy V.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sheehan, Daniel M.</creatorcontrib><title>Quantitative Comparisons of in Vitro Assays for Estrogenic Activities</title><title>Environmental health perspectives</title><addtitle>Environ Health Perspect</addtitle><description>Substances that may act as estrogens show a broad chemical structural diversity. To thoroughly address the question of possible adverse estrogenic effects, reliable methods are needed to detect and identify the chemicals of these diverse structural classes. We compared three assays-in vitro estrogen receptor competitive binding assays (ER binding assays), yeast-based reporter gene assays (yeast assays), and the MCF-7 cell proliferation assay (E-SCREEN assay)-to determine their quantitative agreement in identifying structurally diverse estrogens. We examined assay performance for relative sensitivity, detection of active/inactive chemicals, and estrogen/antiestrogen activities. In this examination, we combined individual data sets in a specific, quantitative data mining exercise. Data sets for at least 29 chemicals from five laboratories were analyzed pair-wise by X-Y plots. The ER binding assay was a good predictor for the other two assay results when the antiestrogens were excluded (r2 is 0.78 for the yeast assays and 0.85 for the E-SCREEN assays). Additionally, the examination strongly suggests that biologic information that is not apparent from any of the individual assays can be discovered by quantitative pair-wise comparisons among assays. Antiestrogens are identified as outliers in the ER binding/yeast assay, while complete antagonists are identified in the ER binding and E-SCREEN assays. Furthermore, the presence of outliers may be explained by different mechanisms that induce an endocrine response, different impurities in different batches of chemicals, different species sensitivity, or limitations of the assay techniques. Although these assays involve different levels of biologic complexity, the major conclusion is that they generally provided consistent information in quantitatively determining estrogenic activity for the five data sets examined. The results should provide guidance for expanded data mining examinations and the selection of appropriate assays to screen estrogenic endocrine disruptors.</description><subject>Agonists</subject><subject>Binding, Competitive</subject><subject>Biological Assay - standards</subject><subject>Cell Division - drug effects</subject><subject>Chemicals</subject><subject>Data mining</subject><subject>Datasets</subject><subject>Environmental Exposure</subject><subject>Environmental Pollutants - analysis</subject><subject>Environmental Pollutants - toxicity</subject><subject>Estrogen receptor modulators</subject><subject>Estrogen receptors</subject><subject>Estrogens</subject><subject>Estrogens - analysis</subject><subject>Estrogens - toxicity</subject><subject>Genes, Reporter</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Predictive Value of Tests</subject><subject>Receptors, Estrogen - analysis</subject><subject>reporter gene</subject><subject>Reporter genes</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Steroids</subject><subject>Yeasts</subject><subject>Yeasts - drug effects</subject><issn>0091-6765</issn><issn>1552-9924</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2000</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqN0s1rFDEUAPBBFLtWb55lDioenJpMPia5CMuy1UKh-NVryMy-7KbMTNYkU-x_3ye7yi4UlBwCL7-8fLxXFC8pOaO10h9gsz0jhBLV1OxRMaNC1JXWNX9czAjRtJKNFCfFs5RuCDIl5dPihBIteaPrWbH8Mtkx-2yzv4VyEYatjT6FMZXBlX4sr32OoZynZO9S6UIslwkDaxh9V8473OSzh_S8eOJsn-DFfj4tfpwvvy8-V5dXny4W88uqkzVjVS0VZZzylnPJwFKlFODFNXWOgpMtVbbjK7AgMO6I0K3m-CouqG1XRBF2Wnzc5d1O7QCrDsYcbW-20Q823plgvTleGf3GrMOtoZKpWktM8HafIIafE6RsBp866Hs7QpiSoU1TN4Lyf0MuJBNUI3y_g2vbg_GjC3hwhx8EeH4YwXkMzyVirhRDXj3Acaxg8N1D_t2RR5LhV17bKSVz8e3rf9Or6yP65oBuwPZ5k0I_ZY-VP3L7x3UxpBTB_f1qSszv7jPYfeZP9yF_dVieA7xrNwSvd-Am5RAPk9WMNIZxhvUW7B7YHN5Q</recordid><startdate>20000801</startdate><enddate>20000801</enddate><creator>Fang, Hong</creator><creator>Tong, Weida</creator><creator>Perkins, Roger</creator><creator>Soto, Ana M.</creator><creator>Prechtl, Nancy V.</creator><creator>Sheehan, Daniel M.</creator><general>National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. National Institutes of Health. Department of Health, Education and Welfare</general><general>National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20000801</creationdate><title>Quantitative Comparisons of in Vitro Assays for Estrogenic Activities</title><author>Fang, Hong ; Tong, Weida ; Perkins, Roger ; Soto, Ana M. ; Prechtl, Nancy V. ; Sheehan, Daniel M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c6233-26813414b4463ea1888e10891ff1ef6b18ac4deae58e1f059b94723451abd0803</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2000</creationdate><topic>Agonists</topic><topic>Binding, Competitive</topic><topic>Biological Assay - standards</topic><topic>Cell Division - drug effects</topic><topic>Chemicals</topic><topic>Data mining</topic><topic>Datasets</topic><topic>Environmental Exposure</topic><topic>Environmental Pollutants - analysis</topic><topic>Environmental Pollutants - toxicity</topic><topic>Estrogen receptor modulators</topic><topic>Estrogen receptors</topic><topic>Estrogens</topic><topic>Estrogens - analysis</topic><topic>Estrogens - toxicity</topic><topic>Genes, Reporter</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Predictive Value of Tests</topic><topic>Receptors, Estrogen - analysis</topic><topic>reporter gene</topic><topic>Reporter genes</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Steroids</topic><topic>Yeasts</topic><topic>Yeasts - drug effects</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Fang, Hong</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tong, Weida</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Perkins, Roger</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Soto, Ana M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Prechtl, Nancy V.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sheehan, Daniel M.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Environmental health perspectives</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Fang, Hong</au><au>Tong, Weida</au><au>Perkins, Roger</au><au>Soto, Ana M.</au><au>Prechtl, Nancy V.</au><au>Sheehan, Daniel M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Quantitative Comparisons of in Vitro Assays for Estrogenic Activities</atitle><jtitle>Environmental health perspectives</jtitle><addtitle>Environ Health Perspect</addtitle><date>2000-08-01</date><risdate>2000</risdate><volume>108</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>723</spage><epage>729</epage><pages>723-729</pages><issn>0091-6765</issn><eissn>1552-9924</eissn><abstract>Substances that may act as estrogens show a broad chemical structural diversity. To thoroughly address the question of possible adverse estrogenic effects, reliable methods are needed to detect and identify the chemicals of these diverse structural classes. We compared three assays-in vitro estrogen receptor competitive binding assays (ER binding assays), yeast-based reporter gene assays (yeast assays), and the MCF-7 cell proliferation assay (E-SCREEN assay)-to determine their quantitative agreement in identifying structurally diverse estrogens. We examined assay performance for relative sensitivity, detection of active/inactive chemicals, and estrogen/antiestrogen activities. In this examination, we combined individual data sets in a specific, quantitative data mining exercise. Data sets for at least 29 chemicals from five laboratories were analyzed pair-wise by X-Y plots. The ER binding assay was a good predictor for the other two assay results when the antiestrogens were excluded (r2 is 0.78 for the yeast assays and 0.85 for the E-SCREEN assays). Additionally, the examination strongly suggests that biologic information that is not apparent from any of the individual assays can be discovered by quantitative pair-wise comparisons among assays. Antiestrogens are identified as outliers in the ER binding/yeast assay, while complete antagonists are identified in the ER binding and E-SCREEN assays. Furthermore, the presence of outliers may be explained by different mechanisms that induce an endocrine response, different impurities in different batches of chemicals, different species sensitivity, or limitations of the assay techniques. Although these assays involve different levels of biologic complexity, the major conclusion is that they generally provided consistent information in quantitatively determining estrogenic activity for the five data sets examined. The results should provide guidance for expanded data mining examinations and the selection of appropriate assays to screen estrogenic endocrine disruptors.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. National Institutes of Health. Department of Health, Education and Welfare</pub><pmid>10964792</pmid><doi>10.1289/ehp.00108723</doi><tpages>7</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0091-6765
ispartof Environmental health perspectives, 2000-08, Vol.108 (8), p.723-729
issn 0091-6765
1552-9924
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_1638296
source MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; PubMed Central Open Access; JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central
subjects Agonists
Binding, Competitive
Biological Assay - standards
Cell Division - drug effects
Chemicals
Data mining
Datasets
Environmental Exposure
Environmental Pollutants - analysis
Environmental Pollutants - toxicity
Estrogen receptor modulators
Estrogen receptors
Estrogens
Estrogens - analysis
Estrogens - toxicity
Genes, Reporter
Humans
Predictive Value of Tests
Receptors, Estrogen - analysis
reporter gene
Reporter genes
Sensitivity and Specificity
Steroids
Yeasts
Yeasts - drug effects
title Quantitative Comparisons of in Vitro Assays for Estrogenic Activities
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T00%3A58%3A13IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Quantitative%20Comparisons%20of%20in%20Vitro%20Assays%20for%20Estrogenic%20Activities&rft.jtitle=Environmental%20health%20perspectives&rft.au=Fang,%20Hong&rft.date=2000-08-01&rft.volume=108&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=723&rft.epage=729&rft.pages=723-729&rft.issn=0091-6765&rft.eissn=1552-9924&rft_id=info:doi/10.1289/ehp.00108723&rft_dat=%3Cgale_pubme%3EA66354883%3C/gale_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=14563519&rft_id=info:pmid/10964792&rft_galeid=A66354883&rft_jstor_id=3434725&rfr_iscdi=true