Cited by 54Effects and risks of endocrine disrupting chemicalsSexual Differentiation and DisordersEstrogen and related hormone effects

Developmental Treatment with Bisphenol A or Ethinyl Estradiol Causes Few Alterations on Early Preweaning Measures

Ferguson, Sherry A., Law, Charles D., Abshire, Jordan S.·2011·Toxicological Sciences

Abstract

Because bisphenol A (BPA) exposure is nearly ubiquitous, increased knowledge of its potential effects on development will enable better risk assessment and regulatory guidance. Here, Sprague-Dawley rats were reared in low exogenous estrogen environments. After breeding at adulthood, dams were gavaged on gestational days (GDs) 6-21 with vehicle (VEH), 2.5 or 25.0 μg/kg/day BPA, or 5.0 or 10.0 μg/kg/day ethinyl estradiol (EE₂). Offspring were orally treated on postnatal days (PNDs) 1-21 with the same dose the dam received. Relative to the VEH group, dams of both EE₂-treated groups weighed less throughout gestation and lactation. PND 1 absolute anogenital distance and anogenital index were unaltered by any treatment. Ages at fur development and eye and ear opening were unaffected by any treatment. Despite a significant treatment effect, no group was significantly different from VEH in PNDs 3-6 righting latencies; although males had shorter latencies and all latencies decreased with age. PNDs 8-11 slant board behavior was unaffected by any treatment; however, males had shorter turning latencies and latencies decreased with age. Preweaning body weights of BPA- and EE₂-treated groups as well as naive controls were less than VEH. No treatment affected PND 21 whole or regional brain weights or levels of estradiol, testosterone, corticosterone, T3, T4, luteinizing hormone, ghrelin, or leptin. These results add to the literature indicating that developmental BPA treatment at these doses has no effects on gestational or lactational body weight, offspring anogenital distance, preweaning behaviors or hormone levels, and whole and regional brain weights measured at weaning.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/toxsci/kfr201

Cites

84 of 84 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Previously, the authors described few BPA effects on pre- and postweaning behaviors that are not generally thought to be sexually dimorphic.

    “Previously, we described few BPA effects on pre-and postweaning behaviors that are not generally thought to be sexually dimorphic (Ferguson et al., 2012(Ferguson et al., , 2011)).”

    From Developmental Treatment with Ethinyl Estradiol, but Not Bisphenol A, Causes Alterations in Sexually Dimorphic Behaviors in Male and Female Sprague Dawley Rats (2014) · cites this paper as Ferguson et al., 2011

    The Discussion reports no BPA effects on the two preweaning behaviors tested, supporting the preweaning part of the claim. It says postweaning behavioral results would be reported separately, so this paper does not support the postweaning part. It also does not characterize the tested behaviors as generally non-sexually dimorphic; its results report a sex difference in slant-board performance. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Our previous descriptions of significant EE2, but few BPA, effects on pre- and postweaning behaviors add to the growing body of literature indicating lack of effect at these orally administered BPA doses.

    “Our previous descriptions of significant EE 2 , but few BPA, effects on pre-and postweaning behaviors (Ferguson et al., 2011(Ferguson et al., , 2012) ) add to the growing body of literature indicating lack of effect at these orally administered BPA doses.”

    From Developmental Treatment with Ethinyl Estradiol, but Not Bisphenol A, Causes Alterations in Sexually Dimorphic Behaviors in Male and Female Sprague Dawley Rats (2014) · cites this paper as Ferguson et al., 2011

    The Discussion reports few effects of oral BPA at the tested doses, and the preweaning behavioral results show no significant BPA effects. But this paper does not show significant EE2 effects on preweaning behavior: the Righting reflex section reports no treatment group differed significantly from vehicle, and the Slant board behavior section reports no treatment effect. Postweaning behavioral results were reserved for a separate report. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In mammals, pharmacological levels of EE2 exert important effects on reproductive physiology and behavior.

    “In mammals, pharmacological levels of EE2 exert important effects on reproductive physiology and behavior [18, 31–34].”

    From Developmental exposure to low levels of ethinylestradiol affects social play in juvenile male rats (2020) · cites this paper as [33]

    The results on dam body weight and litter outcomes (pages not provided) show that EE2-treated rats had lower gestational body weights and, at the higher dose, lower pup birth weights. But the Righting reflex and Slant board behavior results report no significant differences from controls attributable to EE2. The paper therefore supports effects on some pregnancy-related measures in rats, not the broader claim of important effects on both reproductive physiology and behavior in mammals. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The lack of significance for BPA treatment here is consistent with previous descriptions from the same cohort.

    “Additionally, the lack of significance for BPA treatment here is consistent with our previous descriptions from the same cohort (Ferguson et al., 2011(Ferguson et al., , 2012)).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ferguson, S. A., Law, C. D., & Abshire, J. S.
Affiliations
National Center for Toxicological Research (US)
Venue
Toxicological Sciences
Published
2011-08-03
Volume
124
Issue
1
Pages
149-160
ISSN
  • 1096-0929 (ISSN-L)
  • 1096-6080
OpenAlex
W2116247529
Cited by
54
References
84
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 2
FWCI
3.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Toxicological Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Effects and risks of endocrine disrupting chemicals
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Sexual Differentiation and Disorders
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Estrogen and related hormone effects
Keywords
bisphenol A, ethinyl estradiol, developmental toxicity, prenatal estrogen exposure, anogenital distance, brain weight, hormone levels
MeSH terms
Bisphenol A Compounds, Animals, Behavior, Animal, Benzhydryl Compounds, Body Weight, Brain, Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Ethinyl Estradiol, Female, Genitalia, Gestational Age, Hormones, Male, Organ Size, Phenols, Pregnancy, Prenatal Exposure Delayed Effects, Weaning, Proportional Hazards Models, Rats, Sprague-Dawley, Rats, Reflex, Righting

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