Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38723698›Full record

ArticleReproductive toxicology (Elmsford, N.Y.)2024

Screening and characterization of 133 physiologically-relevant environmental chemicals for reproductive toxicity.

Gurugowtham Ulaganathan, Hui Jiang, Noah Canio, Ashwini Oke, Sujit Silas Armstrong, Dimitri Abrahamsson, Julia R Varshavsky, Juleen Lam, Courtney Cooper, Joshua F Robinson and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Reproductive toxicology (Elmsford, N.Y.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Gurugowtham UlaganathanInstitute for Society and Genetics, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Hui JiangInstitute for Society and Genetics, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Noah CanioInstitute for Society and Genetics, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Ashwini OkeCenter for Reproductive Sciences and Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences, UCSF, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Sujit Silas ArmstrongInstitute for Society and Genetics, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Dimitri AbrahamssonDepartment of Pediatrics at NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA; University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Julia R VarshavskyDepartment of Health Sciences and Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA.
Juleen LamDepartment of Public Health, California State University, East Bay, Hayward, CA, USA.
Courtney CooperUniversity of California, San Francisco (UCSF), Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Joshua F RobinsonCenter for Reproductive Sciences and Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences, UCSF, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Jennifer C FungCenter for Reproductive Sciences and Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences, UCSF, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Tracey J WoodruffCenter for Reproductive Sciences and Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences, UCSF, San Francisco, CA, USA; University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Patrick AllardInstitute for Society and Genetics, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), Los Angeles, CA, USA. Electronic address: pallard@ucla.edu.

Funding

Women's CancersP30CA016042 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI Robert Damoiseaux · 1985 to 2026
$134.5M
UCSF Environmental Research and Translation for Health Center (EaRTH Center)P30ES030284 · NIEHS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI Rashmi Joglekar · 2020 to 2026
$11.2M
Transdisciplinary Approach to Rapidly Identify Reproductive Toxics in Pregnant Women and NewbornsR01ES027051 · NIEHS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI Dimitri Abrahamsson, Tracey J. Woodruff · 2016 to 2026
$6.6M
Mechanisms of memory of environmental exposure: determining the role of histone modifications in regulating transgenerational behavior effects caused by environmental chemical exposure.R01ES027487 · NIEHS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI ALLARD, PATRICK · 2017 to 2021
$1.8M
Advancing chemical risk assessment through development, validation and integration of high throughput mechanistic in vitro dataR15ES033816 · NIEHS · CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY HAYWARD · PI LAM, JULEEN · 2022 to 2022
$462k
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016042NIEHS NIH HHS P30 ES030284NIEHS NIH HHS R01 ES027051NIEHS NIH HHS R01 ES027487NIEHS NIH HHS R15 ES033816
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reproduction is a functional outcome that relies on complex cellular, tissue, and organ interactions that span the developmental period to adulthood. Thus, the assessment of its disruption by environmental chemicals would benefit significantly from scalable and innovative approaches to testing using functionally comparable reproductive models such as the nematode C. elegans. We adapted a previously described low-throughput in vivo chromosome segregation assay using C. elegans predictive of reproductive toxicity and leveraged available public data sources (ToxCast, ICE) to screen and characterize 133 physiologically-relevant chemicals in a high-throughput manner. The screening outcome was further validated in a second, independent in vivo assay assessing embryonic viability. In total, 13 chemicals were classified as reproductive toxicants with the two most active chemicals belonging to the large family of Quaternary Ammonium Compounds (QACs) commonly used as disinfectants but with limited available reproductive toxicity data. We compared the results from the C. elegans assay with ToxCast in vitro data compiled from 700+ cell response assays and 300+ signaling pathways-based assays. We did not observe a difference in the bioactivity or in the average potency (AC50) between the top and bottom chemicals. However, the intended target categories were significantly different between the classified chemicals with, in particular, an over-representation of steroid hormone targets for the high Z-score chemicals. Taken together, these results point to the value of in vivo models that scale to high-throughput level for reproductive toxicity assessment and to the need to prioritize the assessment of QACs impacts on reproduction.

Indexed as

Caenorhabditis elegansEnvironmental PollutantsReproductionAnimalsHigh-Throughput Screening AssaysToxicity TestsEnvironmental PollutantsAlternative testingC. elegansNAMsQACsReproductive toxicity

Identifiers

PMID38723698
PMCPMC11155672

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.