Cargando…

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 estroge...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fang, H, Tong, W, Perkins, R, Soto, A M, Prechtl, N V, Sheehan, D M
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: 2000
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1638296/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10964792
_version_ 1782130993082138624
author Fang, H
Tong, W
Perkins, R
Soto, A M
Prechtl, N V
Sheehan, D M
author_facet Fang, H
Tong, W
Perkins, R
Soto, A M
Prechtl, N V
Sheehan, D M
author_sort Fang, H
collection PubMed
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 (r(2) 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.
format Text
id pubmed-1638296
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2000
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-16382962006-11-17 Quantitative comparisons of in vitro assays for estrogenic activities. Fang, H Tong, W Perkins, R Soto, A M Prechtl, N V Sheehan, D M Environ Health Perspect Research Article 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 (r(2) 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. 2000-08 /pmc/articles/PMC1638296/ /pubmed/10964792 Text en
spellingShingle Research Article
Fang, H
Tong, W
Perkins, R
Soto, A M
Prechtl, N V
Sheehan, D M
Quantitative comparisons of in vitro assays for estrogenic activities.
title Quantitative comparisons of in vitro assays for estrogenic activities.
title_full Quantitative comparisons of in vitro assays for estrogenic activities.
title_fullStr Quantitative comparisons of in vitro assays for estrogenic activities.
title_full_unstemmed Quantitative comparisons of in vitro assays for estrogenic activities.
title_short Quantitative comparisons of in vitro assays for estrogenic activities.
title_sort quantitative comparisons of in vitro assays for estrogenic activities.
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1638296/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10964792
work_keys_str_mv AT fangh quantitativecomparisonsofinvitroassaysforestrogenicactivities
AT tongw quantitativecomparisonsofinvitroassaysforestrogenicactivities
AT perkinsr quantitativecomparisonsofinvitroassaysforestrogenicactivities
AT sotoam quantitativecomparisonsofinvitroassaysforestrogenicactivities
AT prechtlnv quantitativecomparisonsofinvitroassaysforestrogenicactivities
AT sheehandm quantitativecomparisonsofinvitroassaysforestrogenicactivities