| Literature DB >> 21697028 |
Ruthann A Rudel1, Suzanne E Fenton, Janet M Ackerman, Susan Y Euling, Susan L Makris.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Perturbations in mammary gland (MG) development may increase risk for later adverse effects, including lactation impairment, gynecomastia (in males), and breast cancer. Animal studies indicate that exposure to hormonally active agents leads to this type of developmental effect and related later life susceptibilities. In this review we describe current science, public health issues, and research recommendations for evaluating MG development. DATA SOURCES: The Mammary Gland Evaluation and Risk Assessment Workshop was convened in Oakland, California, USA, 16-17 November 2009, to integrate the expertise and perspectives of scientists, risk assessors, and public health advocates. Interviews were conducted with 18 experts, and seven laboratories conducted an MG slide evaluation exercise. Workshop participants discussed effects of gestational and early life exposures to hormonally active agents on MG development, the relationship of these developmental effects to lactation and cancer, the relative sensitivity of MG and other developmental end points, the relevance of animal models to humans, and methods for evaluating MG effects. SYNTHESIS: Normal MG development and MG carcinogenesis demonstrate temporal, morphological, and mechanistic similarities among test animal species and humans. Diverse chemicals, including many not considered primarily estrogenic, alter MG development in rodents. Inconsistent reporting methods hinder comparison across studies, and relationships between altered development and effects on lactation or carcinogenesis are still being defined. In some studies, altered MG development is the most sensitive endocrine end point.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21697028 PMCID: PMC3237346 DOI: 10.1289/ehp.1002864
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Environ Health Perspect ISSN: 0091-6765 Impact factor: 9.031
Figure 1Stages of normal rat MG development and effects of environment on subsequent events. Effects of early life EDC exposures can lead to altered developmental programming in the breast and have been reported neonatally, at puberty, and well into adulthood, when effects on lactation or mammary tumorigenesis become evident. The normal morphology and pace of pubertal development are often altered, and these effects can be observed using MG whole-mount preparations. Transient or permanent effects may be due to gene imprinting, altered gene expression, modified endogenous MG signaling, or changes in hormonal milieu. Arrows indicate plausible (black) or more certain (gray) mechanistic pathways. Photomicrographs for early life and puberty were all taken at 16× magnification on a macroscope (adapted from Enoch et al. 2007, with permission from Environmental Health Perspectives); photomicrographs for pregnancy/lactation and adulthood were taken at 10× magnification on a standard microscope (from S.E.F.). Bars = 2 mm.
Female MG outcomes after developmental environmental exposures: rodent–human concordance for selected agents.
| Human study MG outcomes | Animal study MG outcomes | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Environmental factor | Development | Lactation | Cancer risk | Development | Lactation | Cancer susceptibility | ||||||
| Hormonal milieu: dosing (animals) or surrogates (humans) | Δ | Δ | Δ | Δ | Δ (EE2-dams), | Δ | ||||||
| DES | Δ | Δ | Δ (Dams) | Δ | ||||||||
| Genistein/soy | Δ | Δ | Δ | Δ (Dams) | ||||||||
| Δ (Offspring) | Δ | |||||||||||
| DDT/DDE | Δ | Δ | Δ | – (Dams) | ||||||||
| Dioxins/furans | Δ | Δ | Δ | Δ (Dams) | Δ | |||||||
| Abbreviations: —, no effect on this end point; Δ, at least one study has reported an association between the exposure and altered outcomes [see details and citations in Supplemental Material, Table 2 (doi:10.1289/ehp.1002864)]; DDE, dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene; DDT, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane; DMBA, dimethylbenzanethrene; EE2, ethinylestradiol. Examples of concordance between rodents and humans for MG effects are included here. In some cases, findings are mixed or conflicting; in human studies, exposure measures are often imprecise. | ||||||||||||
MG as a sensitive end point of endocrine disruption after developmental exposures in rodents.
| Compound | Study | Species, exposure timing | MG effect type | MG effect LOEL | Basis for inclusion | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Females | ||||||||||
| BPA | Jenkins et al. 2009 | Rat, postnatal (lactation) | Proliferation | 250 μg/kg/day | No effects on age of VO, body weight, serum progesterone, or serum estradiol at 250 μg/kg/day (highest dose tested) | |||||
| Murray et al. 2007 | Rat, prenatal | Hyperplasia | 2.5 μg/kg/day | No effects on body weight, age of VO, litter size, or sex ratio at this or higher doses (2.5–1,000 μg/kg/day). | ||||||
| Muñoz-de-Toro et al. 2005 | Mouse, perinatal | Morphology | 25 ng/kg/day | No effects on plasma estradiol at first proestrus at this or higher dose (250 ng/kg/day) | ||||||
| DDT | Brown and Lamartiniere 1995 | Rat, peripubertal | Proliferation | 50 ng/kg/day | Single-dose study; no effects on body weight or uterine-ovarian weight | |||||
| Genistein | Fritz et al. 1998 | Rat, prenatal and postnatal | Morphology | 25 mg/kg/day | No effects on body weight, uterine weight, AGD, estrous cyclicity, or age at VO at this or higher dose (250 mg/kg/day) | |||||
| Padilla-Banks et al. 2006 | Mouse, neonatal | Morphology | 0.5 mg/kg/day | Effects on ability to deliver live pups and estrous cyclicity at 50 mg/kg/day (but not at either 0.5 or 5 mg/kg/day) | ||||||
| Males | ||||||||||
| Genistein | Delclos et al. 2001 | Rat, prenatal and postnatal | Size | 25 ppm | Effects on ventral prostate weight, pituitary weight, age of eye opening and age of ear unfolding at 1,250 ppm | |||||
| Abbreviations: AGD, anogenital distance; LOEL, lowest observed effect level. | ||||||||||
Priority questions, current views, and issues for improving risk assessment for MG effects.
| Priority question for risk assessment application | Current views | Outstanding issues | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Are the rat and mouse adequate models for human MG development? | Current knowledge suggests that the rat and mouse are reasonable surrogates. | Lack of information about human pubertal development; mechanisms may differ among species. | ||
| What is the sensitivity of MG developmental effects? | Few EDC studies assess both MG development and another sensitive end point of ED; there is a lack of human data to address dose response and a lack of standardized MG development protocol and assessment criteria. | |||
| Are MG developmental changes adverse? | These changes in MG are considered adverse because they represent alterations in growth and development | Varied definitions of “adversity,” depending on scientific discipline and context. | ||