English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Substances that may act as estrogens show a broad chemical structural diversity. To thoroughly address the question of possible adverse estrogenic effects, reliable methods are needed to detect and identify the chemicals of these diverse structural classes. We compared three assays--in vitro estrogen receptor competitive binding assays (ER binding assays), yeast-based reporter gene assays (yeast assays), and the MCF-7 cell proliferation assay (E-SCREEN assay)--to determine their quantitative agreement in identifying structurally diverse estrogens. We examined assay performance for relative sensitivity, detection of active/inactive chemicals, and estrogen/antiestrogen activities. In this examination, we combined individual data sets in a specific, quantitative data mining exercise. Data sets for at least 29 chemicals from five laboratories were analyzed pair-wise by X-Y plots. The ER binding assay was a good predictor for the other two assay results when the antiestrogens were excluded (r(2) is 0.78 for the yeast assays and 0.85 for the E-SCREEN assays). Additionally, the examination strongly suggests that biologic information that is not apparent from any of the individual assays can be discovered by quantitative pair-wise comparisons among assays. Antiestrogens are identified as outliers in the ER binding/yeast assay, while complete antagonists are identified in the ER binding and E-SCREEN assays. Furthermore, the presence of outliers may be explained by different mechanisms that induce an endocrine response, different impurities in different batches of chemicals, different species sensitivity, or limitations of the assay techniques. Although these assays involve different levels of biologic complexity, the major conclusion is that they generally provided consistent information in quantitatively determining estrogenic activity for the five data sets examined. The results should provide guidance for expanded data mining examinations and the selection of appropriate assays to screen estrogenic endocrine disruptors.

Quantitative comparisons of in vitro assays for estrogenic activities.