Literature DB >> 23357612

Mixtures of endocrine disruptors: how similar must mechanisms be for concentration addition to apply?

Thomas F Webster1.   

Abstract

Must molecular mechanisms be the same for concentration addition to predict the effect of a mixture or is it sufficient for compounds to affect similar pathways or common outcomes? Does concentration addition provide a closer approximation to observations than alternative models such as independent action? Suppose effects are mediated by hormone A through receptor R, synthesis of A is reduced by compound B, and that C is a competitive antagonist to A. Both B and C reduce levels of the receptor-ligand complex AR but via different specific mechanisms. Are combinations of B and C concentration additive? We used simple pharmacodynamic models, deriving mathematical models using equilibrium binding and mass balance. Assume A binds the receptor at one site of R with effects proportional to the concentration of AR. Let C act as a competitive antagonist via the Gaddum equation. Let B affect synthesis of A via a function g(B). We derive a model describing the joint response surface of B and C, and a function describing its isoboles. Under concentration addition, the isoboles must be negatively sloped straight lines. We show that linearity of the isoboles depends crucially on g(B). The mixture is concentration additive if g″(B), the second derivative of g(B) with respect to B, is always zero. Responses are greater than concentration additive if g″(B) is always positive and less than concentration additive if g″(B) is always negative. We describe functions g(B) that lead to all three cases as well as one that is greater than concentration additive in some regions and less than concentration additive in others. At least in this simple model, concentration addition cannot be assumed: mixtures of competitive antagonists and compounds that alter hormone synthesis can lead to results that are concentration additive, greater than concentration additive or less than concentration additive. Nevertheless, concentration addition appears to provide a closer approximation to the pharmacodynamic model examined here than independent action. Care needs to be taken in extrapolating to other situations, but analysis of simple pharmacodynamic models appears to be a useful strategy.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:  Anti-androgens; CA; Concentration addition; IA; Independent action; Interaction; Pharmacodynamic modeling; TEF; concentration addition; independent action; toxic equivalence factor

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23357612     DOI: 10.1016/j.tox.2013.01.009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Toxicology        ISSN: 0300-483X            Impact factor:   4.221


  11 in total

1.  Predicting the Activation of the Androgen Receptor by Mixtures of Ligands Using Generalized Concentration Addition.

Authors:  Jennifer J Schlezinger; Wendy Heiger-Bernays; Thomas F Webster
Journal:  Toxicol Sci       Date:  2020-10-01       Impact factor: 4.849

2.  Prenatal exposure to mixtures of xenoestrogens and repetitive element DNA methylation changes in human placenta.

Authors:  Nadia Vilahur; Mariona Bustamante; Hyang-Min Byun; Mariana F Fernandez; Loreto Santa Marina; Mikel Basterrechea; Ferran Ballester; Mario Murcia; Adonina Tardón; Ana Fernández-Somoano; Xavier Estivill; Nicolas Olea; Jordi Sunyer; Andrea A Baccarelli
Journal:  Environ Int       Date:  2014-06-28       Impact factor: 9.621

3.  Generalized concentration addition for ligands that bind to homodimers.

Authors:  Thomas F Webster; Jennifer J Schlezinger
Journal:  Math Biosci       Date:  2019-06-12       Impact factor: 2.144

4.  Time-dependence in mixture toxicity prediction.

Authors:  Douglas A Dawson; Erin M G Allen; Joshua L Allen; Hannah J Baumann; Heather M Bensinger; Nicole Genco; Daphne Guinn; Michael W Hull; Zachary J Il'Giovine; Chelsea M Kaminski; Jennifer R Peyton; T Wayne Schultz; Gerald Pöch
Journal:  Toxicology       Date:  2014-11-01       Impact factor: 4.221

5.  Generalized Concentration Addition Modeling Predicts Mixture Effects of Environmental PPARγ Agonists.

Authors:  James Watt; Thomas F Webster; Jennifer J Schlezinger
Journal:  Toxicol Sci       Date:  2016-06-02       Impact factor: 4.849

6.  Evaluation of consistency for multiple experiments of a single combination in the time-dependence mixture toxicity assay.

Authors:  D A Dawson; G Pöch
Journal:  Toxicol Mech Methods       Date:  2017-07-20       Impact factor: 2.987

7.  Exposure to non-persistent chemicals in consumer products and fecundability: a systematic review.

Authors:  Alison E Hipwell; Linda G Kahn; Pam Factor-Litvak; Christina A Porucznik; Eva L Siegel; Raina N Fichorova; Richard F Hamman; Michele Klein-Fedyshin; Kim G Harley
Journal:  Hum Reprod Update       Date:  2019-01-01       Impact factor: 15.610

8.  Evaluation of time-dependent toxicity and combined effects for a series of mono-halogenated acetonitrile-containing binary mixtures.

Authors:  Douglas A Dawson; Daphne Guinn; Gerald Pöch
Journal:  Toxicol Rep       Date:  2016-07-25

9.  Mixture Concentration-Response Modeling Reveals Antagonistic Effects of Estradiol and Genistein in Combination on Brain Aromatase Gene (cyp19a1b) in Zebrafish.

Authors:  Nathalie Hinfray; Cleo Tebby; Benjamin Piccini; Gaelle Bourgine; Sélim Aït-Aïssa; Jean-Marc Porcher; Farzad Pakdel; François Brion
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2018-04-01       Impact factor: 5.923

Review 10.  EDCs Mixtures: A Stealthy Hazard for Human Health?

Authors:  Edna Ribeiro; Carina Ladeira; Susana Viegas
Journal:  Toxics       Date:  2017-02-07
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.