Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Más filtros

Bases de datos
Tipo del documento
País de afiliación
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Environ Health Perspect ; 124(4): 452-9, 2016 Apr.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26359731

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: There are concerns that diminished prostaglandin action in fetal life could increase the risk of congenital malformations. Many endocrine-disrupting chemicals have been found to suppress prostaglandin synthesis, but to our knowledge, pesticides have never been tested for these effects. OBJECTIVES: We assessed the ability of pesticides that are commonly used in the European Union to suppress prostaglandin D2 (PGD2) synthesis. METHODS: Changes in PGD2 secretion in juvenile mouse Sertoli cells (SC5 cells) were measured using an ELISA. Coincubation with arachidonic acid (AA) was conducted to determine the site of action in the PGD2 synthetic pathway. Molecular modeling studies were performed to assess whether pesticides identified as PGD2-active could serve as ligands of the cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) binding pocket. RESULTS: The pesticides boscalid, chlorpropham, cypermethrin, cyprodinil, fenhexamid, fludioxonil, imazalil (enilconazole), imidacloprid, iprodione, linuron, methiocarb, o-phenylphenol, pirimiphos-methyl, pyrimethanil, and tebuconazole suppressed PGD2 production. Strikingly, some of these substances-o-phenylphenol, cypermethrin, cyprodinil, linuron, and imazalil (enilconazole)-showed potencies (IC50) in the range between 175 and 1,500 nM, similar to those of analgesics intended to block COX enzymes. Supplementation with AA failed to reverse this effect, suggesting that the sites of action of these pesticides are COX enzymes. The molecular modeling studies revealed that the COX-2 binding pocket can accommodate most of the pesticides shown to suppress PGD2 synthesis. Some of these pesticides are also capable of antagonizing the androgen receptor. CONCLUSIONS: Chemicals with structural features more varied than previously thought can suppress PGD2 synthesis. Our findings signal a need for in vivo studies to establish the extent of endocrine-disrupting effects that might arise from simultaneous interference with PGD2 signaling and androgen action. CITATION: Kugathas S, Audouze K, Ermler S, Orton F, Rosivatz E, Scholze M, Kortenkamp A. 2016. Effects of common pesticides on prostaglandin D2 (PGD2) inhibition in SC5 mouse Sertoli cells, evidence of binding at the COX-2 active site, and implications for endocrine disruption. Environ Health Perspect 124:452-459; http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1409544.


Asunto(s)
Ciclooxigenasa 2/metabolismo , Disruptores Endocrinos/toxicidad , Plaguicidas/toxicidad , Prostaglandina D2/antagonistas & inhibidores , Células de Sertoli/efectos de los fármacos , Antagonistas de Receptores Androgénicos , Animales , Ácido Araquidónico/metabolismo , Dominio Catalítico , Masculino , Ratones , Modelos Moleculares , Prostaglandina D2/metabolismo , Unión Proteica , Células de Sertoli/metabolismo
2.
Toxicol Sci ; 122(2): 383-94, 2011 Aug.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-21561885

RESUMEN

In the last few years, significant advances have been made toward understanding the joint action of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs). A number of studies have demonstrated that the combined effects of different types of EDCs (e.g., estrogenic, antiandrogenic, or thyroid-disrupting agents) can be predicted by the model of concentration addition (CA). However, there is still limited information on the effects of mixtures of large numbers of chemicals with varied structural features, which are more representative of realistic human exposure scenarios. The work presented here aims at filling this gap. Using a breast cancer cell proliferation assay (E-Screen), we assessed the joint effects of five mixtures, containing between 3 and 16 estrogenic agents, including compounds as diverse as steroidal hormones (endogenous and synthetic), pesticides, cosmetic additives, and phytoestrogens. CA was employed to predict mixture effects, which were then compared with experimental outcomes. The effects of two of the mixtures tested were additive, being accurately predicted by CA. However, for the three other mixtures, CA slightly overestimated the experimental observations. In view of these results, we hypothesized that the deviations were due to increased metabolism of steroidal estrogens in the mixture setting. We investigated this by testing the impact of two such mixtures on the activation and expression of steroidal estrogen metabolizing enzymes, such as cytochrome P450 (CYP) 1A1, CYP 1B1, and CYP 3A4. Activation of CYP 1B1 and, consequently, a reduction in the levels of steroidal estrogens in the mixture could contribute to the shortfall from the additivity prediction that we observed.


Asunto(s)
Disruptores Endocrinos/farmacología , Estrógenos/farmacología , Plaguicidas/farmacología , Fitoestrógenos/farmacología , Hidrocarburo de Aril Hidroxilasas/metabolismo , Línea Celular Tumoral , Mezclas Complejas/farmacología , Citocromo P-450 CYP1A1/metabolismo , Citocromo P-450 CYP1B1 , Citocromo P-450 CYP3A/metabolismo , Relación Dosis-Respuesta a Droga , Sinergismo Farmacológico , Femenino , Humanos , Dinámicas no Lineales , Análisis de Regresión , Medición de Riesgo
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA