In Vitro Assay Systems for the Assessment of Oestrogenicity

Fig. 3.1

E-screen assay. MCF-7 and MDA-MB-231 cells were grown for 6 days in the absence (control) or presence of 10−9 M 17β-estradiol (βE2) or 10−8 M bisphenol-A (BPA), and their viability was assessed using the MTT assay
Scepticism regarding the E-screen has also been expressed because different clones of MCF-7 cultured in identical conditions showed distinct differences in the proliferative response to estradiol and to the xenoestrogens, p-nonyl-phenol and bisphenol-A [49], as well as to commercial resin-based dental restorative materials [41]. However, this is a common problem when working with cancer cells, and one can overcome it through meticulously uniform cell stocks. Furthermore, apart from MCF-7 cells, other oestrogen-responsive breast cancer cell lines have been used in the E-screen assay, such as T-47D [43] or ZR-75-1 [50].
The proliferation of the Ishikawa human endometrial cancer cell line has also been proposed to be used for the evaluation of oestrogenic activity [51], but there were indications that the response of this cell line is not specific for oestrogenic molecules [52] in contrast to breast cancer ones. However, Ishikawa cells have been shown to respond to oestrogen and phytoestrogens with a potent induction of alkaline phosphatase (ALP) activity, which is oestrogen specific [53, 54]; hence, it can be used for the screening of potentially oestrogenic compounds [19, 55].
Probably, the most important drawback to the use of both the E-screen and the ALP-induction assays as rapid screening tools is that they are time consuming (the assessment can take from 3 to 6 days, depending on the protocol variation). Accordingly, analysis of oestrogen-regulated gene or protein expression in various cell types can be used as an alternative. For example, expression in MCF-7 cells of the genes coding for the progesterone receptor [56] and for the trefoil peptide pS2 [57, 58] or prolactin production by rat pituitary cells [59, 60] has been proposed as tools to study an oestrogen-specific response. However, these assays are not always as sensitive as the E-screen [32], and they require the use of laborious and/or expensive techniques such as northern blotting or real-time PCR; hence, they are not appropriate for high-throughput screening.
The use of genetically engineered mammalian cell systems was intended to solve some of the above problems. In most of the cases, cells are transfected with an oestrogen-inducible reporter gene, or they are co-transfected with an ER-construct and an ERE-containing reporter gene, similarly to the approaches described above in yeast. The reporter genes usually are designed for measuring CAT or luciferase activity, which due to their high sensitivity offer the possibility to identify even weak oestrogens [15]. The transfection can be transient [61] or stable [19], the latter being more advantageous in terms of reproducibility, as well as rapidity, once the stable line is ready for use [32]. The parental cells used for transfection can be either ER negative, such as HeLa [61] or HEK-293 [19], or ER responsive, like MCF-7 or MG-63 [62]. Consequently, it is clear that apart from the high-throughput capability and the rapidity of these assays (typically gene expression can be assessed within 24 h), their main advantage is their versatility, allowing for separate tests for the various ER subtypes and EREs, recognising both oestrogens and anti-oestrogens and giving the choice of selecting an ER-naive cell context, such as in the case of HeLa cells, or a more physiological context, such as that of MCF-7 cells [15]. Still, these assay systems are artificial, and there are reports regarding the irreversible silencing of the reporter gene after treatment with anti-oestrogens, such as 4-hydroxy-tamoxifen [63, 64].

3.4 Conclusion

In this chapter, a battery of in vitro assays for the evaluation of the oestrogenic properties of natural or synthetic compounds was presented. One should not forget that the evidence for in vitro oestrogenicity of a test molecule cannot always be conclusive without the knowledge of in vivo data regarding its metabolism and bioavailability. However, only in vitro testing can respond to the urgent need for screening the huge amount of novel materials produced every day in the industrialised societies. Specifically in dental practice, most often, the E-screen, the RBA and various yeast assay systems are being used, a fact probably reflecting their credibility and/or their simplicity.
Kuiper GG, Enmark E, Pelto-Huikko M, Nilsson S, Gustafsson JA (1996) Cloning of a novel receptor expressed in rat prostate and ovary. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 93(12):5925–5930PubMedCrossRef
Moggs JG, Orphanides G (2001) Estrogen receptors: orchestrators of pleiotropic cellular responses. EMBO Rep 2(9):775–781PubMedCrossRef
Maggiolini M, Picard D (2010) The unfolding stories of GPR30, a new membrane-bound estrogen receptor. J Endocrinol 204(2):105–114PubMedCrossRef
Singleton DW, Khan SA (2003) Xenoestrogen exposure and mechanisms of endocrine disruption. Front Biosci 8:s110–s118PubMedCrossRef
Allinson M, Shiraishi F, Salzman SA, Allinson G (2010) In vitro and immunological assessment of the estrogenic activity and concentrations of 17beta-estradiol, estrone, and ethinyl estradiol in treated effluent from 45 wastewater treatment plants in Victoria, Australia. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 58(3):576–586PubMedCrossRef
Vandenberg LN, Maffini MV, Sonnenschein C, Rubin BS, Soto AM (2009) Bisphenol-A and the great divide: a review of controversies in the field of endocrine disruption. Endocr Rev 30(1):75–95PubMedCrossRef
Maffini MV, Rubin BS, Sonnenschein C, Soto AM (2006) Endocrine disruptors and reproductive health: the case of bisphenol-A. Mol Cell Endocrinol 254–255:179–186PubMedCrossRef
Eliades T (2007) Orthodontic materials research and applications: part 2. Current status and projected future developments in materials and biocompatibility. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 131(2):253–262PubMedCrossRef
Hashimoto Y, Moriguchi Y, Oshima H, Nishikawa J, Nishihara T, Nakamura M (2000) Estrogenic activity of chemicals for dental and similar use in vitro. J Mater Sci Mater Med 11(8):465–468PubMedCrossRef
Olea N, Pulgar R, Perez P, Olea-Serrano F, Rivas A, Novillo-Fertrell A et al (1996) Estrogenicity of resin-based composites and sealants used in dentistry. Environ Health Perspect 104(3):298–305PubMedCrossRef
Hashimoto Y, Nakamura M (2000) Estrogenic activity of dental materials and bisphenol-A related chemicals in vitro. Dent Mater J 19(3):245–262PubMedCrossRef
Tsai WT (2006) Human health risk on environmental exposure to Bisphenol-A: a review. J Environ Sci Health C Environ Carcinog Ecotoxicol Rev 24(2):225–255PubMedCrossRef
Fleisch AF, Sheffield PE, Chinn C, Edelstein BL, Landrigan PJ (2010) Bisphenol A and related compounds in dental materials. Pediatrics 126(4):760–768PubMedCrossRef
Diel P, Smolnikar K, Michna H (1999) In vitro test systems for the evaluation of the estrogenic activity of natural products. Planta Med 65(3):197–203PubMedCrossRef
Mueller SO (2002) Overview of in vitro tools to assess the estrogenic and antiestrogenic activity of phytoestrogens. J Chromatogr B Analyt Technol Biomed Life Sci 777(1–2):155–165PubMedCrossRef
Only gold members can continue reading. Log In or Register to continue

Oct 30, 2015 | Posted by in General Dentistry | Comments Off on In Vitro Assay Systems for the Assessment of Oestrogenicity
Premium Wordpress Themes by UFO Themes