Dataset Information

Avoiding False Positives and Optimizing Identification of True Negatives in Estrogen Receptor Binding and Agonist/Antagonist Assays.

ABSTRACT: The potential for chemicals to affect endocrine signaling is commonly evaluated via in vitro receptor binding and gene activation, but these assays, especially antagonism assays, have potential artifacts that must be addressed for accurate interpretation. Results are presented from screening 94 chemicals from 54 chemical groups for estrogen receptor (ER) activation in a competitive rainbow trout ER (rtER) binding assay and a trout liver slice vitellogenin mRNA expression assay. Results from true competitive agonists and antagonists, and inactive chemicals with little or no indication of ER binding or gene activation were easily interpreted. However, results for numerous industrial chemicals were more challenging to interpret, including chemicals with: (1) apparent competitive binding curves but no gene activation, (2) apparent binding and gene inhibition with evidence of either cytotoxicity or changes in assay media pH, (3) apparent binding but non-competitive gene inhibition of unknown cause, or (4) no rtER binding and gene inhibition not due to competitive ER interaction but due to toxicity, pH change, or some unknown cause. The use of endpoints such as toxicity, pH, precipitate formation, and determination of inhibitor dissociation constants (Ki) for interpreting the results of antagonism and binding assays for diverse chemicals is presented. Of the 94 chemicals tested for antagonism only two, tamoxifen and ICI-182780, were found to be true competitive antagonists. This report highlights the use of two different concentrations of estradiol tested in combination with graded concentrations of test chemical to provide the confirmatory evidence to distinguish true competitive antagonism from apparent antagonism.

SUBMITTER: Hornung MW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6104401 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Avoiding False Positives and Optimizing Identification of True Negatives in Estrogen Receptor Binding and Agonist/Antagonist Assays.

Hornung Michael W MW Tapper Mark A MA Denny Jeffrey S JS Sheedy Barbara R BR Erickson Raymond R Sulerud Taylor J TJ Kolanczyk Richard C RC Schmieder Patricia K PK

Applied in vitro toxicology 20170601 2

The potential for chemicals to affect endocrine signaling is commonly evaluated via <i>in vitro</i> receptor binding and gene activation, but these assays, especially antagonism assays, have potential artifacts that must be addressed for accurate interpretation. Results are presented from screening 94 chemicals from 54 chemical groups for estrogen receptor (ER) activation in a competitive rainbow trout ER (rtER) binding assay and a trout liver slice vitellogenin mRNA expression assay. Results fr ...[more]

PMID: 30148189

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has had an incomparable triumph in prenatal diagnostics in the last decade. Over 1400 research articles have been published, predominantly praising the advantages of this test. Methods The present study identified among the 1400 papers 24 original and one review paper, which were suited to re-evaluate the efficacy of > 750,000 published NIPT-results. Special attention was given to false-positive and false-negative result-rates. Those were discussed under different aspects—mainly from a patient-perspective. Results A 27: 1 rate of false-positive compared to false-negative NIPT results was found. Besides, according to all reported, real-positive, chromosomally aberrant NIPT cases, 90% of those would have been aborted spontaneously before birth. These findings are here discussed under aspects like (i) How efficient is NIPT compared to first trimester screening? (ii) What are the differences in expectations towards NIPT from specialists and the public? and (iii) There should also be children born suffering from not by NIPT tested chromosomal aberrations; why are those never reported in all available NIPT studies? Conclusions Even though much research has been published on NIPT, unbiased figures concerning NIPT and first trimester screening efficacy are yet not available. While false positive rates of different NIPT tests maybe halfway accurate, reported false-negative rates are most likely too low. The latter is as NIPT-cases with negative results for tested conditions are yet not in detail followed up for cases with other genetic or teratogenic caused disorders. This promotes an image in public, that NIPT is suited to replace all invasive tests, and also to solve the problem of inborn errors in humans, if not now then in near future. Overall, it is worth discussing the usefulness of NIPT in practical clinical application. Particularly, asking for unbiased figures concerning the efficacy of first trimester-screening compared to NIPT, and for really comprehensive data on false-positive and false-negative NIPT results. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13039-022-00612-2.

Dataset Information

Avoiding False Positives and Optimizing Identification of True Negatives in Estrogen Receptor Binding and Agonist/Antagonist Assays.

Publications

Avoiding False Positives and Optimizing Identification of True Negatives in Estrogen Receptor Binding and Agonist/Antagonist Assays.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets