4.5 Article

Metabolomic Response of Human Embryonic Stem CellDerived Germ-like Cells After Exposure to Steroid Hormones

期刊

TOXICOLOGICAL SCIENCES
卷 129, 期 1, 页码 9-20

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/toxsci/kfs185

关键词

metabolomics; germ cell; stem cell; steroid hormones

资金

  1. Georgia Research Alliance

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To assess the potential risks of human exposure to endocrine active compounds (EACs), the mechanisms of toxicity must first be identified and characterized. Currently, there are no robust in vitro models for identifying the mechanisms of toxicity in germ cells resulting from EAC exposure. Human embryonic stem cells can differentiate into numerous functional cell types including germ-like cells (GLCs). These cells possess characteristics indicative of a germ cell state, suggesting they offer a novel system to investigate the consequences of chemical exposure on normal germ cell processes. To characterize these processes, a metabolomic-based approach was employed to determine the response of GLCs following exposure to 0.001, 0.01, 0.1, 1, 10, or 100M estradiol, testosterone, or progesterone for 48h. Following exposure, cellular extracts underwent gas chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry analysis. Models were then constructed using principal component analysis on acquired spectra to discriminate among steroid hormones as well as doses for each hormone. t-test comparisons generated a preliminary list of metabolites that were statistically significant in GLC's biochemical response to these steroid hormones. Steroid hormone exposures caused fluxes in intracellular pathways such as amino acid synthesis and metabolism, fatty acid synthesis, as well as cholesterol and lipoprotein metabolism. Further pathway analysis, based on these identified metabolites, will aid in modeling the response of GLCs to endogenous steroid hormones and allow for identification of biomarkers delineating germ cell-based developmental and reproductive pathways.

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

4.5
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