4.6 Article

Thyroid Disruption by Di-n-Butyl Phthalate (DBP) and Mono-n-Butyl Phthalate (MBP) in Xenopus laevis

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 6, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0019159

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Basic Research Program of China [2009CB941703]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [30930079, 30771830, 30901222]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

laevis Background: Di-n-butyl phthalate (DBP), a chemical widely used in many consumer products, is estrogenic and capable of producing seriously reproductive and developmental effects in laboratory animals. However, recent in vitro studies have shown that DBP and mono-n-butyl phthalate (MBP), the major metabolite of DBP, possessed thyroid hormone receptor (TR) antagonist activity. It is therefore important to consider DBP and MBP that may interfere with thyroid hormone system. Methodology/Principal Findings: Nieuwkoop and Faber stage 51 Xenopus laevis were exposed to DBP and MBP (2, 10 or 15 mg/L) separately for 21 days. The two test chemicals decelerated spontaneous metamorphosis in X. laevis at concentrations of 10 and 15 mg/L. Moreover, MBP seemed to possess stronger activity. The effects of DBP and MBP on inducing changes of expression of selected thyroid hormone response genes: thyroid hormone receptor-beta (TR beta), retinoid X receptor gamma (RXR gamma), alpha and beta subunits of thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH alpha and TSH beta) were detected by qPCR at all concentrations of the compounds. Using mammalian two-hybrid assay in vitro, we found that DBP and MBP enhanced the interactions between co-repressor SMRT (silencing mediator for retinoid and thyroid hormone receptors) and TR in a dose-dependent manner, and MBP displayed more markedly. In addition, MBP at low concentrations (2 and 10 mg/L) caused aberrant methylation of TR beta in head tissue. Conclusions: The current findings highlight potential disruption of thyroid signalling by DBP and MBP and provide data for human risk assessment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据