ArticleEnvironmental science & technology2025
Beyond Estrogenicity: A Comparative Assessment of Bisphenol A and Its Alternatives in In Vitro Assays Questions Safety of Replacements.
Article in Environmental science & technology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Navigating the Forest of Lignin-Derived Monomers for Polymer Synthesis.Biomacromolecules · 2026Review
- The Role of ES&T in Advancing Environmental Toxicology and Chemical Risk Assessment: Past, Present, and Future.Environmental science & technology · 2026Review
- An Integrated Approach Combining Regulatory Tests inEnvironmental science & technology · 2026Article
- "The Dose Makes the Poison": Relevance of Paracelsus's Principle for Modern Chemical Hazard Assessment with New Approach Methodologies.Environmental science & technology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bisphenol A (BPA) is a well-known endocrine disruptor linked to numerous adverse health outcomes and was, therefore, banned in food-contact materials in the European Union. Numerous alternatives are now in commerce, but their health hazards are often inadequately addressed. This study compared BPA and 26 alternatives in six in vitro bioassays for cytotoxicity, endocrine disruption, xenobiotic metabolism, adaptive stress responses, mitochondrial toxicity, and neurotoxicity. We developed a cumulative specificity ratio score that integrates the degree of specific activation and overall toxicological activity across a test battery, enabling direct comparison of BPA with its alternatives. Several alternatives with close structural resemblance showed similar or stronger activation of the estrogen receptor α (ERα) than BPA. The lack of estrogenicity for several BPA alternatives, e.g., 4-(4-phenylmethoxyphenyl)sulfonylphenol (BPS-MPE), was accompanied by a shift toward peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor γ (PPARγ) activation, a receptor that is not relevant for BPA itself. Some alternatives additionally inhibited mitochondrial functions and caused neurotoxicity. Simulated phase I metabolism reduced the cytotoxicity of all alternatives except for methyl bis(4-hydroxyphenyl)acetate (Bz) and 4-[[4-(allyloxy)phenyl]sulfonyl]phenol (BPS-MAE), while estrogenic activity remained unchanged or decreased. This study demonstrates the utility of bioassays for rapid hazard assessment and comparative evaluation, suggesting that many BPA alternatives are regrettable substitutes, although 2,2,4,4-tetramethyl-1,3-cyclobutanediol (TMCD) is a potentially more benign alternative.
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.