The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Quantitative comparisons of in vitro assays for estrogenic activities.
Open accessAbstract
Substances that may act as estrogens show a broad chemical structural diversity. To thoroughly address the question of possible adverse estrogenic effects, reliable methods are needed to detect and identify the chemicals of these diverse structural classes. We compared three assays--in vitro estrogen receptor competitive binding assays (ER binding assays), yeast-based reporter gene assays (yeast assays), and the MCF-7 cell proliferation assay (E-SCREEN assay)--to determine their quantitative agreement in identifying structurally diverse estrogens. We examined assay performance for relative sensitivity, detection of active/inactive chemicals, and estrogen/antiestrogen activities. In this examination, we combined individual data sets in a specific, quantitative data mining exercise. Data sets for at least 29 chemicals from five laboratories were analyzed pair-wise by X-Y plots. The ER binding assay was a good predictor for the other two assay results when the antiestrogens were excluded (r(2) is 0.78 for the yeast assays and 0.85 for the E-SCREEN assays). Additionally, the examination strongly suggests that biologic information that is not apparent from any of the individual assays can be discovered by quantitative pair-wise comparisons among assays. Antiestrogens are identified as outliers in the ER binding/yeast assay, while complete antagonists are identified in the ER binding and E-SCREEN assays. Furthermore, the presence of outliers may be explained by different mechanisms that induce an endocrine response, different impurities in different batches of chemicals, different species sensitivity, or limitations of the assay techniques. Although these assays involve different levels of biologic complexity, the major conclusion is that they generally provided consistent information in quantitatively determining estrogenic activity for the five data sets examined. The results should provide guidance for expanded data mining examinations and the selection of appropriate assays to screen estrogenic endocrine disruptors.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Yung-Chi, C., & Prusoff, W. H. (1973) · Biochemical Pharmacology · doi:10.1016/0006-2952(73)90196-2 · Cited by 12,922
Cited by
Prenatal Phenol and Phthalate Exposures and Birth Outcomes
Wolff, M. S., Engel, S. M., Berkowitz, G. S., Ye, X., Silva, M. J., Zhu, C., Wetmur, J., & Calafat, A. M. (2008) · Environmental Health Perspectives · doi:10.1289/ehp.11007 · Cited by 580
Suzuki, T., Kitamura, S., Khota, R., Sugihara, K., Fujimoto, N., & Ohta, S. (2005) · Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.taap.2004.07.005 · Cited by 373
Okubo, T., Yokoyama, Y., Kano, K., & Kano, I. (2001) · Food and Chemical Toxicology · doi:10.1016/s0278-6915(01)00073-4 · Cited by 286
Shirota, M., Kawashima, J., Nakamura, T., Kamiie, J., Shirota, K., & Yoshida, M. (2015) · The Journal of Toxicological Sciences · doi:10.2131/jts.40.727 · Cited by 13
Metadata
- Authors
- Fang, H., Tong, W., Perkins, R., Soto, A. M., Prechtl, N. V., & Sheehan, D. M.
- Venue
- Environmental Health Perspectives
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2000-08
- Volume
- 108
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 723-729
- ISSN
- 0091-6765 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-9924
- OpenAlex
- W2071497567
- Cited by
- 277
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 13.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Quantitative comparisons of in vitro assays for estrogenic activities. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1289/ehp.00108723
- The paper
- Fang, H., Tong, W., Perkins, R., Soto, A. M., Prechtl, N. V., & Sheehan, D. M. (2000). Quantitative comparisons of in vitro assays for estrogenic activities. Environmental Health Perspectives. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.00108723
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.