4.5 Article

Elucidating toxicological mechanisms of current flame retardants using a bacterial gene profiling assay

期刊

TOXICOLOGY IN VITRO
卷 29, 期 8, 页码 2124-2132

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.tiv.2015.09.001

关键词

Reporter assay; Flame retardants; Mode of action; Bacterial stress genes; Escherichia coli

资金

  1. EU [264600]
  2. Agency for Innovation by Science and Technology (IWT)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Flame retardants are ubiquitously used chemicals that have been shown to contaminate environments. Toxicological data is largely limited, with little insight into their molecular modes of action that may give rise to their toxic phenotypes. Such insight would aid more effective risk assessments concerning these compounds, while also improving molecular design. We therefore used a bacterial stress-gene profiling assay to screen twelve currently-used flame retardants to obtain mechanistic insights of toxicity. Both brominated and organophosphate flame retardants were tested. All compounds showed statistically significant inductions of several stress genes when compared to control treatments. Triphenyl phosphate, tris(2-butoxyethyl) phosphate, tris(1,3-dichloro-2-propyl)phosphate, tris(butyl)phosphate, and tetrabromobisphenol A elicited (at least) twofold inductions for any of the stress genes. When looking at absolute induction levels, the promoters induced are indicative of protein perturbation, DNA integrity and membrane integrity. However, normalising for the different induction potentials of the different stress genes and clustering using hierarchical and k-means algorithms indicated that in addition to protein and DNA damage, some compounds also resulted in growth arrest and oxidative damage. This research shows that this assay allows for the determination of toxicological modes-of-action while clustering and accounting for induction potentials of the different genes aids better risk assessment. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据