4.8 Article

The potential endocrine disruption of pesticide transformation products (TPs): The blind spot of pesticide risk assessment

期刊

ENVIRONMENT INTERNATIONAL
卷 137, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2020.105490

关键词

Pesticide transformation products; Metabolites; Biotransformation; Endocrine-disrupting effects; In vitro; Risk assessment

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2016YFD0200202]
  2. National Nature Science Foundation of China [2137005, 21677130]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The ecological and health risk assessment of environmental pesticide residues have attracted ever-growing attention; however, their transformation products (TPs) have seldom been considered. Herein, we examined the endocrine-disrupting effects of 4 widely used pesticides as pyriproxyfen (Pyr), malathion (ML), benalaxyl (BX), and fenoxaprop-ethyl (FE), together with their 21 TPs through in vitro and in silico approaches, and found approximately 50% of the TPs exhibited stronger endocrine-disrupting effects than their corresponding parent compounds. Specifically, Pyr and 9 TPs (five TPs of Pyr, one of ML, one of BX, and two of FE) exhibited estrogen-disrupting effects, which were also confirmed by results of E-screen and pS2 expression assays, and molecular docking showed that certain hydroxylated TPs could well mimic the binding mode of estrogen with ER alpha. Meanwhile, two TPs of Pyr, ML and its TP demonstrated weak glucocorticoid antagonistic activities partially contributed by hydrogen bonds. We also discovered that in H295R cells, all the endocrine disruptors increased hormone secretion and the related gene expression levels. Conclusively, since an increasing number of pesticide TPs have been being detected in various environmental media, a more comprehensive understanding of the ecological risk of pesticide TPs is imperative for risk assessments more extensively and regulatory policy-making on pesticide restriction in the future.

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

4.8
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