ArticleEnvironmental health perspectives2007
Activity of xenoestrogens at nanomolar concentrations in the E-Screen assay.
Article in Environmental health perspectives, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.
- State of the evidence 2017: an update on the connection between breast cancer and the environment.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2017Review
- Defining an additivity framework for mixture research in inducible whole-cell biosensors.Scientific reports · 2015Article
- Article
- Serum factors and clinical characteristics associated with serum E-screen activity.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2013Article
- Article
- Article
- Generation of stable reporter breast cancer cell lines for the identification of ER subtype selective ligands.Biochemical pharmacology · 2011Article
- Endocrine disrupting chemicals targeting estrogen receptor signaling: identification and mechanisms of action.Chemical research in toxicology · 2011Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCertain effects induced by endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) may occur at dose levels lower than those normally tested in toxicology, but few systematic dose-response studies have been carried out in the low-dose range.
objectivesThe high statistical power afforded by a high-throughput in vitro assay such as the E-Screen assay was exploited with the aim of producing low-dose estimates for 24 estrogenic chemicals, including endogenous hormones and xenoestrogens.
resultsUnusual dose-response curves with inverted U-shapes were not observed in the low-dose range. Instead, many chemicals exhibited curves with very small gradients at low doses, and this complicated the reliable estimation of low effects. Systematic comparisons between the outcomes of hypothesis-testing procedures (lowest observed effect concentrations--LOECs, no observed effect concentrations--NOECs) and regression modeling approaches (EC(01)--effective concentration causing a 1% effect, EC(05)--effective concentration causing a 5% effect) produced estimates that agreed reasonably well. In many cases, NOECs were shown to be associated with proliferative responses of 1-2%. This is in contrast with the widespread perception of NOECs as values that signal complete absence of effects. For many of the tested xenoestrogens, the NOECs, EC(01), and EC(05) were in the nanomolar range, and comparisons with measured serum and adipose tissue levels in Europe revealed considerable overlaps in some cases.
conclusionsOur studies illustrate the difficulties that may be encountered during the estimation of low doses in vivo. High statistical power is required when the underlying dose-response curves are shallow. Through the use of large sample sizes and numerous repeats, the experimental power of the E-Screen assay was sufficiently high to measure effect magnitudes of around 1-2% with reliability. However, such resources are usually not available for in vivo testing, with the consequence that the statistical detection limits are considerably higher. If this coincides with shallow dose-response curves in the low-effect range (which is normally not measurable in vivo), the limited resolving power of in vivo assays may seriously constrain low-dose testing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.