Literature DB >> 24434118

Species-specific relative AHR1 binding affinities of 2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorodibenzofuran explain avian species differences in its relative potency.

Reza Farmahin1, Stephanie P Jones2, Doug Crump2, Mark E Hahn3, John P Giesy4, Matthew J Zwiernik5, Steven J Bursian5, Sean W Kennedy6.   

Abstract

Results of recent studies showed that 2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorodibenzofuran (PeCDF) and 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) are equipotent in domestic chicken (Gallus gallus domesticus) while PeCDF is more potent than TCDD in ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) and Japanese quail (Coturnix japonica). To elucidate the mechanism(s) underlying these differences in relative potency of PeCDF among avian species, we tested the hypothesis that this is due to species-specific differential binding affinity of PeCDF to the aryl hydrocarbon receptor 1 (AHR1). Here, we modified a cell-based binding assay that allowed us to measure the binding affinity of dioxin-like compounds (DLCs) to avian AHR1 expressed in COS-7 (fibroblast-like cells). The results of the binding assay show that PeCDF and TCDD bind with equal affinity to chicken AHR1, but PeCDF binds with greater affinity than TCDD to pheasant (3-fold) and Japanese quail (5-fold) AHR1. The current report introduces a COS-7 whole-cell binding assay and provides a mechanistic explanation for differential relative potencies of PeCDF among species of birds. Crown
Copyright © 2014. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Aryl hydrocarbon receptor; Bird; COS-7 cells; Cell-based binding assay; Dioxin; PeCDF; TCDD

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24434118     DOI: 10.1016/j.cbpc.2013.12.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Comp Biochem Physiol C Toxicol Pharmacol        ISSN: 1532-0456            Impact factor:   3.228


  2 in total

1.  Integrating Monitoring and Genetic Methods To Infer Historical Risks of PCBs and DDE to Common and Roseate Terns Nesting Near the New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site (Massachusetts, USA).

Authors:  Diane E Nacci; Mark E Hahn; Sibel I Karchner; Saro Jayaraman; Carolyn Mostello; Kenneth M Miller; Carma Gilchrist Blackwell; Ian C T Nisbet
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2016-09-09       Impact factor: 9.028

Review 2.  Building and Applying Quantitative Adverse Outcome Pathway Models for Chemical Hazard and Risk Assessment.

Authors:  Edward J Perkins; Roman Ashauer; Lyle Burgoon; Rory Conolly; Brigitte Landesmann; Cameron Mackay; Cheryl A Murphy; Nathan Pollesch; James R Wheeler; Anze Zupanic; Stefan Scholz
Journal:  Environ Toxicol Chem       Date:  2019-08-08       Impact factor: 3.742

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.