Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Toxic masking and synergistic modulation of the estrogenic activity of chemical mixtures in a yeast estrogen screen (YES)

  • AREA 7.2 • IMPACTS / INTERACTIONS OF CHEMICALS • RESEARCH ARTICLE
  • Published:
Environmental Science and Pollution Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background, aim and scope

Estrogenic and non-estrogenic chemicals typically co-occur in the environment. Interference by non-estrogenic chemicals may confound the assessment of the actual estrogenic activity of complex environmental samples. The aim of the present study was to investigate whether, in which way and how seriously the estrogenic activity of single estrogens and the observed and predicted joint action of estrogenic mixtures is influenced by toxic masking and synergistic modulation caused by non-estrogenic chemical confounders.

Materials and methods

The yeast estrogen screen (YES) was adapted so that toxicity and estrogenicity could be quantified simultaneously in one experimental run. Mercury, two organic solvents (dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) and 2,4-dinitroaniline), a surfactant (LAS-12) and the antibiotic cycloheximide were selected as toxic but non-estrogenic test chemicals. The confounding impact of selected concentrations of these toxicants on the estrogenic activity of the hormone 17ß-estradiol was determined by co-incubation experiments. In a second step, the impact of toxic masking and synergistic modulation on the predictability of the joint action of 17ß-estradiol, estrone and estriol mixtures by concentration addition was analysed.

Results

Each of the non-estrogenic chemicals reduced the apparent estrogenicity of both single estrogens and their mixtures if applied at high, toxic concentrations. Besides this common pattern, a highly substance- and concentration-dependent impact of the non-estrogenic toxicants was observable. The activity of 17ß-estradiol was still reduced in the presence of only low or non-toxic concentrations of 2,4-dinitroaniline and cycloheximide, which was not the case for mercury and DMSO. A clear synergistic modulation, i.e. an enhanced estrogenic activity, was induced by the presence of slightly toxic concentrations of LAS-12. The joint estrogenic activity of the mixture of estrogens was affected by toxic masking and synergistic modulation in direct proportion to the single estrogens, which allowed for an adequate adaptation of concentration addition and thus unaffected predictability of the joint estrogenicity in the presence of non-estrogenic confounders.

Discussion

The modified YES proved to be a reliable system for the simultaneous quantification of yeast toxicity and estrogen receptor activation. Experimental results substantiate the available evidence for toxic masking as a relevant phenomenon in estrogenicity assessment of complex environmental samples. Synergistic modulation of estrogenic activity by non-estrogenic confounders might be of lower importance. The concept of concentration addition is discussed as a valuable tool for estrogenicity assessment of complex mixtures, with deviations of the measured joint estrogenicity from predictions indicating the need for refined analyses.

Conclusions

Two major challenges are to be considered simultaneously for a reliable analysis of the estrogenic activity of complex mixtures: the identification of known and suspected estrogenic compounds in the sample as well as the substance- and effect-level-dependent confounding impact of non-estrogenic toxicants.

Recommendations and perspectives

The application of screening assays such as the YES to complex mixtures should be accompanied by measures that safeguard against false negative results which may be caused by non-estrogenic but toxic confounders. Simultaneous assessments of estrogenicity and toxicity are generally advisable.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Beck IC, Bruhn R, Gandrass J (2006) Analysis of estrogenic activity in coastal surface waters of the Baltic Sea using the yeast estrogen screen. Chemosphere 63(11):1870–1878

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Berenbaum MC (1985) The expected effect of a combination of agents: the general solution. J Theor Biol 114:413–431

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Beresford N, Routledge EJ, Harris CA, Sumpter JP (2000) Issues arising when interpreting results from an in vitro assay for estrogenic activity. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 162:22–33

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Coldham NG, Dave M, Silvapathasundaram S, McDonnel DP, Connor C, Sauer MJ (1997) Evaluation of a recombinant yeast cell estrogen screening assay. Environ Health Perspect 105:734–742

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper TG, Bossinger J (1976) Selective inhibition of protein synthesis iniation in Saccharomyces cerevisiae by low concentrations of cycloheximide. J Biol Chem 251(22):7278–7280

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Coors A, Jones PD, Giesy JP, Ratte HT (2003) Removal of estrogenic activity from municipal waste landfill leachate assessed with a bioassay based on reporter gene expression. Environ Sci Technol 37:3430–3434

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • de Boever P, Demare W, Vanderperren E, Cooreman K, Bossier P, Verstraete W (2001) Optimization of a yeast estrogen screen and its applicability to study the release of estrogenic isoflavones from a soygerm powder. Environ Health Perspect 109:691–697

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fang H, Tong W, Perkins R, Soto AM, Prechtl N, Sheehan DM (2000) Quantitative comparisons of in vitro assays for estrogenic activities. Environ Health Perspect 108:723–729

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Faust M, Altenburger R, Backhaus T, Blanck H, Boedeker W, Gramatica P, Hamer V, Scholze M, Vighi M, Grimme LH (2003) Joint algal toxicity of 16 dissimilarly acting chemicals is predictable by the concept of independent action. Aquat Toxicol 63:43–63

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Freyberger A, Schmuck G (2005) Screening for estrogenicity and anti-estrogenicity: a critical evaluation of an MVLN cell-based transactivation assay. Toxicol Lett 155(1):1–13

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Greenspan FS, Gardner DG (eds) (2004) Basic and clinical endocrinology. Seventh edition. Lange Medical Books/McGraw-Hill, New York. 976 pp

  • Hamblen EL, TD CM, Schultz TW (2003) Estrogenicity and acute toxicity of selected anilines using a recombinant yeast assay. Chemosphere 52:1173–1181

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Harris CA, Brian JV, Pojona G, Lamoree M, Booy P, Marcomini A, Sumpter JP (2009) The influence of a surfactant, linear alkylbenzene sulfonate, on the estrogenic response to a mixture of (xeno) estrogens in vitro and in vivo. Aquat Toxicol 91(1):95–98

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchinson TH, Shillabeer N, Winter MJ, Pickford DB (2006) Acute and chronic effects of carrier solvents in aquatic organisms: a critical review. Aquatic Toxicol 76(1):69–92

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • ISO 7027 (1999) Water quality—determination of turbidity. International Organisation for Standardisation

  • Iwahashi H, Fujita K, Takahashi Y (2000) Bioassay for chemical toxicity using yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Water Sci Technol 42(7–8):269–276

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kase R, Hansen PD, Fischer B, Manz W, Heininger P, Reifferscheid G (2008) Integral assessment of estrogenic potentials of sediment-associated samples, part 1: the influence of salinity on the in vitro tests ELRA, E-Screen and YES. Environ Sci Pollut Res 15(1):75–83

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Knight AW, Keenan PO, Goddard NJ, Fielden PR, Wamsley RM (2004) A yeast-based cytotoxicity and genotoxicity assay for environmental monitoring using novel portable instrumentation. J Environ Monit 6:71–79

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kortenkamp A (2007) Ten years of mixing cocktails—a review of endocrine disrupter mixture effects. Environ Health Perspect 114:752–758

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthijs E, Holt MS, Kiewiet A, Rijs GBJ (1999) Environmental monitoring for linear alkylbenzene sulfonate, alcohol ethoxylate, alcohol ethoxy sulfate, and soap. Environ Toxicol Chem 18:2634–2644

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Miller D, Wheals BB, Beresford N, Sumpter J (2001) Estrogenic activity of phenolic additives determinded by an in vitro yeast bioassay. Environ Health Perspect 109:133–138

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Müller M, Herrchen M (2002) Ranking der prioritären Stoffe der Wasserrahmenrichtlinie sowie sonstiger Schadstoffe hinsichtlich ihrer Relevanz in Deutschland bzw. in einzelnen Flusseinzugsgebieten. Umweltbundesamt, Berlin

  • Murk AJ, Legler J, van Lipzig MMH, Meermann HN, Belfroid AC, Spenkelink A, van der Burg B, Rijs GBJ, Vethaak D (2002) Detection of estrogenic potency in wastewater and surface water with three in vitro bioassays. Environ Toxicol Chem 21:16–23

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Nakada N, Nyunoya H, Nakamura M, Hara A, Iguchi T, Takada H (2004) Identification of estrogenic compounds in wastewater effluent. Environ Toxicol Chem 23:2807–2815

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Payne J, Rajapakse N, Wilkins M, Kortenkamp A (2000) Prediction and assessment of the effects of mixtures of four xenoestrogens. Environ Health Perspect 108:983–987

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Peck M, Gibson RW, Kortenkamp A, Hill EM (2004) Sediments are major sinks of steroidal estrogens in two United Kingdom rivers. Environ Toxicol Chem 23:945–952

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rajapakse N, Ong D, Kortenkamp A (2001) Defining the impact of weakly estrogenic chemicals on the action of steroidal estrogens. Toxicol Sci 60:296–304

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Routledge E, Sumpter JP (1996) Estrogenic activity of surfactants and some of their degradation products assessed using a recombinant yeast screen. Environ Toxicol Chem 15:241–248

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rutishauser BV, Pesonen M, Escher BI, Ackermann GE, Aerni HR, Suter MJF, Eggen RIL (2004) Comparative analysis of estrogenic activity in sewage treatment plant effluents involving three in vitro assays and chemical analysis of steroids. Environ Toxicol Chem 23:857–864

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Scholze M, Boedeker W, Faust M, Backhaus T, Altenburger R, Grimme LH (2001) A general best-fit method for concentration–response curves and the estimation of low-effect concentrations. Environ Toxicol Chem 20:448–457

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schultis T, Metzger JW (2004) Determination of estrogenic activity by LYES-assay (yeast estrogen screen-assay assisted by enzymatic digestion with lyticase). Chemosphere 57:1649–1655

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Singer MM, Tjerdema RS (1993) Fate and effects of the surfactant sodium dodecyl sulfate. Rev Environ Contam Toxicol 133:95–149

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Snyder SA, Villeneuve DL, Snyder EM, Giesy JP (2001) Identification and quantification of estrogen receptor agonists in wastewater effluents. Environ Sci Technol 35:3620–3625

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sumpter JP (2005) Endocrine disrupters in the aquatic environment: an overview. Acta Hydrochim Hydrobiol 33:9–16

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Thorpe KL, Gross-Sorokin M, Johnson I, Brighty G, Tyler CR (2006) An assessment of the model of concentration addition for predicting the estrogenic activity of chemical mixtures in wastewater treatment works effluents. Environ Health Perspect 114(suppl 1):90–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanderperren E, Demare W, Blust R, Cooreman K, Bossier P (2001) Oestrogenic activity of CPRG (chlorophenol red-beta-D-galactopyranoside), a beta-galactosidase substrate commonly used in recombinant yeast oestrogenic assays. Biomarkers 6:375–380

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • van Ewijk PH, Hoekstra JA (1993) Calculation of the EC50 and its confidence interval when subtoxic stimulus is present. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 25:25–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber J, Plantikow A, Kreutzmann J (2000) Ein neuer Biotest mit der Hefe Saccharomyces cerevisiae auf aquatische Toxizität. Umweltwiss Schadst Forsch 12(4):185–189

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wind T, Werner U, Jacob M, Hauk A (2004) Environmental concentrations of boron, LAS, EDTA, NTA and Triclosan simulated with GREAT-ER in the river Itter. Chemosphere 54:1135–1144

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Parts of the work have been carried out under the EU-funded project ACE (EVK1-CT-2001-00100), and financial support from the European Commission is gratefully acknowledged. We thank Erika Lorenz and Marianne Matzke (Bremen University) for their excellent technical support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Federal Environment Agency (UBA), Wörlitzer Platz 1, 06844, Dessau-Rosslau, Germany

    Tobias Frische

  2. Faust & Backhaus Environmental Consulting GbR, Fahrenheitstraße, 1, 28359, Bremen, Germany

    Michael Faust

  3. Department of Biology and Chemistry, University of Bremen, P.O. Box 330440, 28359, Bremen, Germany

    Wiebke Meyer

  4. Department of Plant and Environment Sciences, University of Gothenburg, Carls Skottsbergs Gata 22B, Box 464, 40530, Gothenburg, Sweden

    Thomas Backhaus

Authors
  1. Tobias Frische
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael Faust
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Wiebke Meyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Thomas Backhaus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tobias Frische.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Henner Hollert

Electronic supplementary material

Major results of concentration response analyses are graphically presented in this paper. Additional figures as well as tables of the corresponding concentration response models and functions are available in the ESM.

ESM 1

(PDF 116 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Frische, T., Faust, M., Meyer, W. et al. Toxic masking and synergistic modulation of the estrogenic activity of chemical mixtures in a yeast estrogen screen (YES). Environ Sci Pollut Res 16, 593–603 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-009-0184-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-009-0184-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation