4.7 Article

Quantitative in vitro-to-in vivo extrapolation (QIVIVE) of estrogenic and anti-androgenic potencies of BPA and BADGE analogues

期刊

ARCHIVES OF TOXICOLOGY
卷 93, 期 7, 页码 1941-1953

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00204-019-02479-6

关键词

Bisphenol A; QIVIVE; Relative potencies; BP analogues; Estrogenic; Androgenic

资金

  1. Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The goal of the present study was to obtain an in vivo relevant prioritization method for the endocrine potencies of different polycarbonate monomers, by combining in vitro bioassay data with physiologically based kinetic (PBK) modelling. PBK models were developed for a selection of monomers, including bisphenol A (BPA), two bisphenol F (BPF) isomers and four different bisphenol A diglycidyl ethers (BADGEs), using in vitro input data. With these models, the plasma concentrations of the compounds were simulated, providing means to estimate the dose levels at which the in vitro endocrine effect concentrations are reached. The results revealed that, whereas the in vitro relative potencies of different BADGEs (predominantly anti-androgenic effects) can be up to fourfold higher than BPA, the estimated in vivo potencies based on the oral equivalent doses are one to two orders of magnitude lower than BPA because of fast detoxification of the BADGEs. In contrast, the relative potencies of 2,2-BPF and 4,4-BPF increase when accounting for the in vivo availability. 4,4-BPF is estimated to be fivefold more potent than BPA in humans in vivo in inducing estrogenic effects and both 2,2-BPF and 4,4-BPF are estimated to be, respectively, 7 and 11-fold more potent in inducing anti-androgenic effects. These relative potencies were considered to be first-tier estimates, particularly given that the potential influence of intestinal metabolism on the in vivo availability was not accounted for. Overall, it can be concluded that both 2,2-BPF and 4,4-BPF are priority compounds.

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

4.7
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