ArticleJournal of molecular modeling2018
Perfluorinated compounds binding to estrogen receptor of different species: a molecular dynamic modeling.
Article in Journal of molecular modeling, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 57 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interaction of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances with Estrogen Receptors in Rainbow Trout (Environmental science & technology · 2024Article
- Perfluoroalkyl substances in umbilical cord blood and blood pressure in offspring: a prospective cohort study.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Perfluorinated compounds (PFCs) were widely utilized in commercial and industrial applications, which could interfere with the endocrine systems of experimental animals and humans by interacting with estrogen receptors (ERs). Considering the possible differential binding preferences and relative binding affinities of PFCs to ERs of humans and other species, a cross-species comparison is necessary to effectively assess the health risk of PFCs to humans. In the present work, the species-specific binding characterizations between two PFCs, including perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and PFOS(4m, 5m), and the different ERαs from Rattus norvegicus, rainbow trout, and humans were explored based on a molecular dynamic modeling. The results proved that linear perfluorinated compound PFOS could make a much stronger binding to ERαs than the branched perfluorinated compounds PFOS(4m, 5m). In addition, PFOS and PFOS(4m, 5m) presented species-difference among human, Rattus norvegicus, and rainbow trout. The binding affinity with ERα presented an order of human >Rattus norvegicus > rainbow trout. This suggested that PFOS and PFOS(4m, 5m) have the strongest effects on human ERα over the other two species. As a consequence, the PFCs were more sensitive to human ERα than to those of Rattus norvegicus and rainbow trout. This resulted in greater susceptibility to adverse effects, which suggested a possible underestimation of the endocrine-disrupting effects of PFCs in humans. The cross-species comparison represents the first and necessary step to identify species-specific binding mechanisms and to accurately evaluate the potential health risks of PFCs in humans.
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.