Testing EDC risk classification in single- versus multi-receptor cells — ASN Events

Testing EDC risk classification in single- versus multi-receptor cells (#466)

Ryan M Walter 1 , Deidre M Mattiske 1 , Andrew J Pask 1
  1. School of Biosciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) are a pervasive and growing threat to human health. Current in vitro screening tests hormone receptors in isolation using transcriptional activation as the sole readout, as in the CALUX assay (1,2). However, tissues most vulnerable to EDC-mediated disease, such as endometrium, breast, and prostate (3–5), co-express hormone receptors such as the estrogen receptor (ER), androgen receptor (AR), and progesterone receptor (PR), which signal through extensive crosstalk (6). Whether this crosstalk changes the impacts of EDCs when receptors are compared in a controlled single- versus multi-receptor system, has not been established. If it does, current EDC screening may systematically misclassify risk. We aim to determine whether multi-receptor context changes EDC detection.

We engineered reporter cell lines with individual or combined receptors to characterise functions. We are screening a panel of established EDCs spanning the three receptors, followed by defined EDC mixtures, across matched single- and multi-receptor lines.

We will determine whether nuclear translocation and reporter transactivation dissociate under EDC treatment, and whether this divergence differs between single- and multi-receptor cells, quantified as the nuclear-to-cytoplasmic ratio compared to transactivation for each compound. Second, we will examine whether EDCs and defined EDC mixtures produce responses in multi-receptor cells that are not predicted from single-receptor, single-compound data.

If translocation and transactivation diverge, transactivation-only assays would report an incomplete picture of receptor disruption. If responses differ between single- and multi-receptor cells, single-receptor screening would misclassify EDCs in the multi-receptor tissues they target and misjudge the non-additive mixtures that real exposures consist of. Either result would indicate that biologically representative, multi-receptor screening is needed to protect human reproductive health.

  1. Sonneveld E, Jansen HJ, Riteco JAC, Brouwer A, van der Burg B. Development of Androgen- and Estrogen-Responsive Bioassays, Members of a Panel of Human Cell Line-Based Highly Selective Steroid-Responsive Bioassays. Toxicol Sci. 2005 Jan 1;83(1):136–48. doi:10.1093/toxsci/kfi005
  2. van der Burg B, Winter R, Man H yen, Vangenechten C, Berckmans P, Weimer M, et al. Optimization and prevalidation of the in vitro AR CALUX method to test androgenic and antiandrogenic activity of compounds. Reproductive Toxicology. 2010 Aug 1;ReProTect Special Issue30(1):18–24. doi:10.1016/j.reprotox.2010.04.012
  3. Horwitz KB, McGuire WL. Estrogen control of progesterone receptor in human breast cancer. Correlation with nuclear processing of estrogen receptor. J Biol Chem. 1978 Apr 10;253(7):2223–8. PubMed PMID: 632265.
  4. Risbridger GP, Davis ID, Birrell SN, Tilley WD. Breast and prostate cancer: more similar than different. Nat Rev Cancer. 2010 Mar;10(3):205–12. doi:10.1038/nrc2795
  5. Critchley HOD, Babayev E, Bulun SE, Clark S, Garcia-Grau I, Gregersen PK, et al. Menstruation: science and society. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Nov;223(5):624–64. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2020.06.004 PubMed PMID: 32707266; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7661839.
  6. Boonyaratanakornkit V, Edwards DP. Receptor mechanisms mediating non-genomic actions of sex steroids. Semin Reprod Med. 2007 May;25(3):139–53. doi:10.1055/s-2007-973427 PubMed PMID: 17447204.