Journal
ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION
Volume 237, Issue -, Pages 1072-1079Publisher
ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2017.11.027
Keywords
Bisphenol A; Alternatives; Thyroid hormone signaling; Pelophylax nigromaculatus; GH3 cells
Categories
Funding
- Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences [XDB14040100]
- National Natural Science Foundation of China [21377153, 21407168]
Ask authors/readers for more resources
The wide use of the alternatives to bisphenol A (BPA) has raised concerns about their potential toxicities. Considering the disrupting activity of BPA on thyroid hormone (TH) signaling, we investigated whether bisphenol S (BPS) and bisphenol F (BPF), two leading alternatives, could interfere with TH signaling pathway using a series of assays in vitro and in vivo. In the fluorescence competitive binding assay, we found BPS and BPF, like BPA, bound to TH receptors (TR alpha and TR beta), with the binding potencies an order of magnitude lower than BPA (BPA > BPF > BPS). Molecular docking data also show their binding potencies to TRs. In the coactivator recruitment assay, BPS and BPF recruited coactivator to TRO but not TRa,, with weaker potencies than BPA. Correspondingly, agonistic actions of the three bisphenols in the absence or presence of T3 were observed in the TR-mediated reporter gene transcription assay. Also, all the three bisphenols induced TH-dependent GH3 cell proliferation, whereas BPA and BPF inhibited T3 induction in the presence of T3. As for in vivo assay, the three bisphenols like T3 induced TH-response gene transcription in Pelophylax nigromaculatus tadpoles, but in the presence of 13 altered T3-induced gene transcription in a biphasic concentration-response manner. These results for the first time demonstrate that BPS and BPF, like BPA, have potential to interfere with TH signaling pathway, i.e., they generally activate TH signaling in the absence of T3, but in the presence of TH, display agonistic or/and antagonistic actions under certain condition. Our study highlights the potential risks of BPS and BPF as BPA alternatives. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available