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.

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.

Additive mixture effects of estrogenic chemicals in human cell-based assays can be influenced by inclusion of chemicals with differing effect profiles.

A growing body of experimental evidence indicates that the in vitro effects of mixtures of estrogenic chemicals can be well predicted from the estrogenicity of their components by the concentration addition (CA) concept. However, some studies have observed small deviations from CA. Factors affecting the presence or observation of deviations could include: the type of chemical tested; number of mixture components; mixture design; and assay choice. We designed mixture experiments that address these factors, using mixtures with high numbers of components, chemicals from diverse chemical groups, assays with different in vitro endpoints and different mixture designs and ratios. Firstly, the effects of mixtures composed of up to 17 estrogenic chemicals were examined using estrogenicity assays with reporter-gene (ERLUX) and cell proliferation (ESCREEN) endpoints. Two mixture designs were used: 1) a 'balanced' design with components present in proportion to a common effect concentration (e.g. an EC(10)) and 2) a 'non-balanced' design with components in proportion to potential human tissue concentrations. Secondly, the individual and simultaneous ability of 16 potential modulator chemicals (each with minimal estrogenicity) to influence the assay outcome produced by a reference mixture of estrogenic chemicals was examined. Test chemicals included plasticizers, phthalates, metals, PCBs, phytoestrogens, PAHs, heterocyclic amines, antioxidants, UV filters, musks, PBDEs and parabens. In all the scenarios tested, the CA concept provided a good prediction of mixture effects. Modulation studies revealed that chemicals possessing minimal estrogenicity themselves could reduce (negatively modulate) the effect of a mixture of estrogenic chemicals. Whether the type of modulation we observed occurs in practice most likely depends on the chemical concentrations involved, and better information is required on likely human tissue concentrations of estrogens and of potential modulators. Successful prediction of the effects of diverse chemical combinations might be more likely if chemical profiling included consideration of effect modulation.

Joint effects of heterogeneous estrogenic chemicals in the E-screen--exploring the applicability of concentration addition.

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.