2013
DOI: 10.1002/etc.2415
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Development of methods to detect occurrence and effects of endocrine‐disrupting chemicals: Fueling a fundamental shift in regulatory ecotoxicology

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
3
1

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For example, the scales have a tissue-specific estrogen receptor repertoire and regulation compared to the liver and the main cellular pathways affected by E2 are also quite different from identified "E2-responsive liver networks" [7,80]. This is in line with recent efforts to cover more endpoints, tissues and modes of action when evaluating the risks of exposure to EDCs [79,81,82].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 75%
“…For example, the scales have a tissue-specific estrogen receptor repertoire and regulation compared to the liver and the main cellular pathways affected by E2 are also quite different from identified "E2-responsive liver networks" [7,80]. This is in line with recent efforts to cover more endpoints, tissues and modes of action when evaluating the risks of exposure to EDCs [79,81,82].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 75%
“…Subject to oxidative stress, amino acid residues in a protein could be oxidized in complicated ways and generate diverse oxidation products (Xu and Chance, ; Stadtman and Levine, ; Ankley and Tyler, ). Although conventional biomarkers can give us a global evaluation of protein oxidation, they cannot reveal the specific oxidation sites, let alone the oxidative degree and oxidation mechanism for each site (Zong et al ., , ).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In common with inhibition of AChE activity, the mechanisms behind reproductive or endocrine effects, such as intersex (Langston et al, 2007), alterations in ADG/gonadal status (Bignell et al, 2011), and embryo-larvae abnormalities following laboratory exposure to water samples from contaminated sites (Colborn et al, 1993;Gibbs and Bryan, 1986;Money et al, 2011), are also well-established. Consequently, it has been argued that biological tools assessing these responses are most useful in determining the long term health of an ecosystem (Ankley and Tyler, 2013;Handy et al, 2003).…”
Section: Appropriate Selection Of Biomarkersmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…In addition, new legislation also recognises the potential impact of sublethal biological responses such as carcinogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic effects, and highlights the importance of their detection. Consideration of the pathways by which such adverse outcomes occur is also important for the long-term survival of the biota (Ankley and Tyler, 2013;Hutchinson et al, 2013;Kramer et al, 2011). However, despite such an emergent and well-justified mandate for biological assessment, knowledge transfer between environmental biologists or ecotoxicologists, regulators, policymakers and other stakeholders is fragmented.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%