Literature DB >> 16613807

Human response to dioxin: aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR) molecular structure, function, and dose-response data for enzyme induction indicate an impaired human AhR.

Kevin T Connor1, Lesa L Aylward.   

Abstract

The aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR) mediates nearly all studied adverse effects of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) and many related compounds. Binding of TCDD or related ligands to AhR is the key initiating event in downstream biochemical responses. The binding affinity of AhR for TCDD is specific to species and strain, and studies of human AhR demonstrate binding affinities approximately an order of magnitude or more lower than those observed in the most sensitive laboratory strains and species. Molecular genetic studies confirmed that human AhR shares key mutations with the DBA mouse strain that result in an "impaired" AhR (with respect to TCDD binding and responsiveness). Despite a number of polymorphisms in human AhR, the key "DBA-type" mutations appear to be a constant feature of the human AhR, and no polymorphisms have been identified that compensate for the impaired binding function conferred by these mutations. Consistent with the impaired binding status of the human AhR, human cells have consistently required approximately 10-fold higher concentrations of TCDD in vitro than rodent cells to respond with enzyme induction. Recent studies of in vivo enzyme induction-related endpoints in human populations with moderately and highly increased TCDD body burdens detected no relationship between these endpoints and TCDD body burdens at body-burden levels up to 250 ng TEQ/kg body weight, or approximately 25 times above the upper range of current general population background body burdens, while marked elevations in enzyme activity were observed in persons with body burdens above 750 ng TEQ/kg. In contrast, the more sensitive laboratory rodent strains and species exposed to TCDD exhibit significant enzyme induction at body burdens below 50 ng/kg. These interspecies data on the most sensitive and best understood response to binding of TCDD and related compounds to the AhR are consistent with the binding affinity and molecular structure data and support the hypothesis that the human AhR is less functional than the AhR of the more sensitive laboratory animals at a molecular level. Quantitative risk assessments involving interspecies extrapolation from sensitive laboratory species and strains should take these fundamental differences into account when margins of exposure and safety factors are considered.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16613807     DOI: 10.1080/15287390500196487

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev        ISSN: 1093-7404            Impact factor:   6.393


  23 in total

1.  The aryl hydrocarbon receptor regulates an essential transcriptional element in the immunoglobulin heavy chain gene.

Authors:  Michael J Wourms; Courtney E W Sulentic
Journal:  Cell Immunol       Date:  2015-02-26       Impact factor: 4.868

2.  Dissociation of the AhR/ARNT complex by TGF-β/Smad signaling represses CYP1A1 gene expression and inhibits benze[a]pyrene-mediated cytotoxicity.

Authors:  Naoko Nakano; Nobuo Sakata; Yuki Katsu; Daiki Nochise; Erika Sato; Yuta Takahashi; Saori Yamaguchi; Yoko Haga; Souichi Ikeno; Mitsuyoshi Motizuki; Keigo Sano; Kohei Yamasaki; Keiji Miyazawa; Susumu Itoh
Journal:  J Biol Chem       Date:  2020-05-14       Impact factor: 5.157

Review 3.  The Aryl Hydrocarbon Receptor: A Key Bridging Molecule of External and Internal Chemical Signals.

Authors:  Jijing Tian; Yu Feng; Hualing Fu; Heidi Qunhui Xie; Joy Xiaosong Jiang; Bin Zhao
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2015-08-10       Impact factor: 9.028

Review 4.  Exactly the same but different: promiscuity and diversity in the molecular mechanisms of action of the aryl hydrocarbon (dioxin) receptor.

Authors:  Michael S Denison; Anatoly A Soshilov; Guochun He; Danica E DeGroot; Bin Zhao
Journal:  Toxicol Sci       Date:  2011-09-09       Impact factor: 4.849

5.  Transgenic Humanized AHR Mouse Reveals Differences between Human and Mouse AHR Ligand Selectivity.

Authors:  Colin A Flaveny; Gary H Perdew
Journal:  Mol Cell Pharmacol       Date:  2009-01-01

6.  Ligand selectivity and gene regulation by the human aryl hydrocarbon receptor in transgenic mice.

Authors:  Colin A Flaveny; Iain A Murray; Chris R Chiaro; Gary H Perdew
Journal:  Mol Pharmacol       Date:  2009-03-19       Impact factor: 4.436

7.  Regulation of aryl hydrocarbon receptor function by selective estrogen receptor modulators.

Authors:  Carolyn D DuSell; Erik R Nelson; Bryan M Wittmann; Jackie A Fretz; Dmitri Kazmin; Russell S Thomas; J Wesley Pike; Donald P McDonnell
Journal:  Mol Endocrinol       Date:  2009-11-09

8.  Recombinant expression of aryl hydrocarbon receptor for quantitative ligand-binding analysis.

Authors:  Ming Qi Fan; Alex R Bell; David R Bell; Sally Clode; Alwyn Fernandes; Paul M D Foster; Jeffrey R Fry; Tao Jiang; George Loizou; Alan MacNicoll; Brian G Miller; Martin Rose; Osama Shaikh-Omar; Lang Tran; Shaun White
Journal:  Anal Biochem       Date:  2008-10-07       Impact factor: 3.365

Review 9.  Recent advances in 2D and 3D in vitro systems using primary hepatocytes, alternative hepatocyte sources and non-parenchymal liver cells and their use in investigating mechanisms of hepatotoxicity, cell signaling and ADME.

Authors:  Patricio Godoy; Nicola J Hewitt; Ute Albrecht; Melvin E Andersen; Nariman Ansari; Sudin Bhattacharya; Johannes Georg Bode; Jennifer Bolleyn; Christoph Borner; Jan Böttger; Albert Braeuning; Robert A Budinsky; Britta Burkhardt; Neil R Cameron; Giovanni Camussi; Chong-Su Cho; Yun-Jaie Choi; J Craig Rowlands; Uta Dahmen; Georg Damm; Olaf Dirsch; María Teresa Donato; Jian Dong; Steven Dooley; Dirk Drasdo; Rowena Eakins; Karine Sá Ferreira; Valentina Fonsato; Joanna Fraczek; Rolf Gebhardt; Andrew Gibson; Matthias Glanemann; Chris E P Goldring; María José Gómez-Lechón; Geny M M Groothuis; Lena Gustavsson; Christelle Guyot; David Hallifax; Seddik Hammad; Adam Hayward; Dieter Häussinger; Claus Hellerbrand; Philip Hewitt; Stefan Hoehme; Hermann-Georg Holzhütter; J Brian Houston; Jens Hrach; Kiyomi Ito; Hartmut Jaeschke; Verena Keitel; Jens M Kelm; B Kevin Park; Claus Kordes; Gerd A Kullak-Ublick; Edward L LeCluyse; Peng Lu; Jennifer Luebke-Wheeler; Anna Lutz; Daniel J Maltman; Madlen Matz-Soja; Patrick McMullen; Irmgard Merfort; Simon Messner; Christoph Meyer; Jessica Mwinyi; Dean J Naisbitt; Andreas K Nussler; Peter Olinga; Francesco Pampaloni; Jingbo Pi; Linda Pluta; Stefan A Przyborski; Anup Ramachandran; Vera Rogiers; Cliff Rowe; Celine Schelcher; Kathrin Schmich; Michael Schwarz; Bijay Singh; Ernst H K Stelzer; Bruno Stieger; Regina Stöber; Yuichi Sugiyama; Ciro Tetta; Wolfgang E Thasler; Tamara Vanhaecke; Mathieu Vinken; Thomas S Weiss; Agata Widera; Courtney G Woods; Jinghai James Xu; Kathy M Yarborough; Jan G Hengstler
Journal:  Arch Toxicol       Date:  2013-08-23       Impact factor: 5.153

10.  Sequence divergence of Mus spretus and Mus musculus across a skin cancer susceptibility locus.

Authors:  Kimberly L Mahler; Jessica L Fleming; Amy M Dworkin; Nicholas Gladman; Hee-Yeon Cho; Jian-Hua Mao; Allan Balmain; Amanda Ewart Toland
Journal:  BMC Genomics       Date:  2008-12-23       Impact factor: 3.969

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.