4.5 Article

Effects of novel brominated flame retardants on steroidogenesis in primary porcine testicular cells

期刊

TOXICOLOGY LETTERS
卷 224, 期 1, 页码 141-146

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.toxlet.2013.10.018

关键词

BFR; NBFR; TBB; TBCO; TBPH; In vitro steroidogenesis

资金

  1. Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada [406497]
  2. Canada Foundation for Infrastructure
  3. Canada Research Chair program
  4. State Key Laboratory in Marine Pollution, City University of Hong Kong, The Einstein Professor Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Brominated flame retardants are chemicals with fire quenching properties which are extensively used in manufacturing. Historically, less regulated use of legacy brominated flame retardants (BFRs) for a number of years has resulted in ubiquitous contamination of the environment. As a result, some of the more persistent BFRs have been phased out and are being replaced by a next generation of brominated compounds for which there is little toxicological data. The study investigated effects of 2-ethylhexyl tetrabromobenzoate (TBB), 1,2,5,6-tetrabromocyclooctane (TBCO), and bis-(2-ethylhexyl) tetrabromophthalate (TBPH) on steroidogenesis in a porcine primary testicular cell model. TBB did not affect sex-steroid production in this cell model; rather the data suggest a flux towards synthesis of aldosterone and cortisol via up-regulation of CYP21A2. At the greatest concentrations of TBCO and TBPH tested greater production of sex hormones testosterone (T) and estradiol (E2) was observed. Effects were mediated by regulation of multiple molecular targets in the steroidogenesis pathway; CYP11A in the case of TBPH and CYP17A1 in the case of TBCO. This investigation is the first of its kind to use a testicular mixed population cell model to investigate mechanism( s) of action of three chemically diverse compounds currently used in commercial fire retardants. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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