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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Environmental health perspectives 2000-08, Vol.108 (8), p.723-729 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
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 |