ArticleToxicology and applied pharmacology2025
In vitro confirmation of estrogenic and antiandrogenic pesticide bioactivity using schild regression analysis.
Article in Toxicology and applied pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
Abstract
A broad range of anthropogenic chemicals have been reported to display estrogenic (ER) or antiandrogenic bioactivity using high throughput screening (HTS) in vitro assays. Some regulatory agencies have developed tiered in vitro - in vivo endocrine screening batteries in which positive in vitro results automatically "trigger" studies with laboratory animals. Since in vitro assays can produce a number of false positive and false negative results, automatically triggering in vivo testing could result in the unnecessary use of animals and other resources. The in vitro false positive rate may be particularly high with reported AR antagonists, because many nonspecific mechanisms can disrupt competitive AR dose-response assays such that chemicals falsely appear to be competitive AR ligands. In the current investigation, we illustrated the utility of in vitro Schild regression to interrogate the in vitro ER and/or anti-AR bioactivity of pesticides which were positive in HTS ER or AR models. Schild regression discriminates chemicals that act as true competitive receptor ligands from those that disrupt signaling via noncompetitive mechanisms. The chemicals studied included seven pesticides listed by EPA as high priority for in vivo ER or anti-AR testing and two pesticides listed as low priority, as well as 17β-estradiol (E2) and hydroxyflutamide (OHF) as ER and anti-AR reference ligands. Two out of four pesticides tested for ER agonist activity were cytotoxic, and four out of seven pesticides tested for AR antagonist activity, plus OHF, were true competitive AR antagonists (two true positives and two false negatives). Herein, we propose a tiered strategy that includes a more in-depth analysis of in vitro bioactivity using Schild regression to determine if HTS or other in vitro bioactivity data results from true competitive receptor antagonism or some nonspecific mechanism. This strategy could reduce unnecessary in vivo testing for chemicals that are not AR antagonists in vitro.
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.