Cited by 806Effects and risks of endocrine disrupting chemicalsEstrogen and related hormone effectsPhytoestrogen effects and research

The Estrogen Receptor Relative Binding Affinities of 188 Natural and Xenochemicals: Structural Diversity of Ligands

Blair, R. M.·2000·Toxicological Sciences

Abstract

We have utilized a validated (standardized) estrogen receptor (ER) competitive-binding assay to determine the ER affinity for a large, structurally diverse group of chemicals. Uteri from ovariectomized Sprague-Dawley rats were the ER source for the competitive-binding assay. Initially, test chemicals were screened at high concentrations to determine whether a chemical competed with [3H]-estradiol for the ER. Test chemicals that exhibited affinity for the ER in the first tier were subsequently assayed using a wide range of concentrations to characterize the binding curve and to determine each chemical's IC50 and relative binding affinity (RBA) values. Overall, we assayed 188 chemicals, covering a 1 x 10(6)-fold range of RBAs from several different chemical or use categories, including steroidal estrogens, synthetic estrogens, antiestrogens, other miscellaneous steroids, alkylphenols, diphenyl derivatives, organochlorines, pesticides, alkylhydroxybenzoate preservatives (parabens), phthalates, benzophenone compounds, and a number of other miscellaneous chemicals. Of the 188 chemicals tested, 100 bound to the ER while 88 were non-binders. Included in the 100 chemicals that bound to the ER were 4-benzyloxyphenol, 2,4-dihydroxybenzophenone, and 2,2'-methylenebis(4-chlorophenol), compounds that have not been shown previously to bind the ER. It was also evident that certain structural features, such as an overall ring structure, were important for ER binding. The current study provid…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/toxsci/54.1.138

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Blair, R. M.
Affiliations
National Center for Toxicological Research (US)
Corresponding author
Blair, R. M.
Venue
Toxicological Sciences
Published
2000-03-01
Volume
54
Issue
1
Pages
138-153
ISSN
1096-0929 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2151063137
Cited by
806
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 36 · 2017: 47 · 2016: 39 · 2015: 51 · 2014: 48 · 2013: 40 · 2012: 24
FWCI
31.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Toxicological Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Energy
  • U.S. Food and Drug Administration
  • Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Effects and risks of endocrine disrupting chemicals
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Estrogen and related hormone effects
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Phytoestrogen effects and research
Keywords
estrogen receptor, relative binding affinity, competitive binding assay, endocrine disruptors, estradiol, antiestrogens, synthetic estrogens, alkylphenols, phthalates, parabens, pesticides, organochlorine compounds, IC50
MeSH terms
Animals, Benzophenones, Binding, Competitive, Biphenyl Compounds, Female, Insecticides, Ligands, Phenols, Phthalic Acids, Receptors, Estrogen, Steroids, Uterus, Xenobiotics, Rats, Sprague-Dawley, Rats

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review