Suchergebnisse

17β-estradiol protects pancreatic β-cells from apoptosis via the estrogen receptors ERα, ERβ and GPER. Conversely, the endocrine disruptor bisphenol-A (BPA), which exerts multiple effects in this cell type via the same estrogen receptors, increased basal apoptosis. The molecular-initiated events that trigger these opposite actions have yet to be identified. We demonstrated that combined genetic downregulation and pharmacological blockade of each estrogen receptor increased apoptosis to a different extent. The increase in apoptosis induced by BPA was diminished by the pharmacological blockade or the genetic silencing of GPER, and it was partially reproduced by the GPER agonist G1. BPA and G1-induced apoptosis were abolished upon pharmacological inhibition, silencing of ERα and ERβ, or in dispersed islet cells from ERβ knockout (BERKO) mice. However, the ERα and ERβ agonists PPT and DPN, respectively, had no effect on beta cell viability. To exert their biological actions, ERα and ERβ form homodimers and heterodimers. Molecular dynamics simulations together with proximity ligand assays and coimmunoprecipitation experiments indicated that the interaction of BPA with ERα and ERβ as well as GPER activation by G1 decreased ERαβ heterodimers. We propose that ERαβ heterodimers play an antiapoptotic role in beta cells and that BPA- and G1-induced decreases in ERαβ heterodimers lead to beta cell apoptosis. Unveiling how different estrogenic chemicals affect the crosstalk among estrogen receptors should help to identify diabetogenic endocrine disruptors. ; This work was supported by Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación, Agencia Estatal de Investigación (AEI) and Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER) grants BPU2017-86579-R (AN), PID2020-117294RB-I00 (AN, JM-P), Generalitat Valenciana PROMETEO II/2020/006 (AN) and European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement GOLIATH No. 825489 (AN). Author laboratories hold grants from Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación, Agencia Estatal de Investigación y Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER) RTI2018-096724-B-C21 (J-AE) and PID2020-117569RA-I00 (LM). PROMETEO/2016/006 (J-AE) and SEJI/2018/023 (LM) supported by Generalitat Valenciana, Spain. Robert A. Welch Foundation (grant E-0004) (J-AG). CIBERDEM is an initiative of the Instituto de Salud Carlos III.

This is an Open Access article: verbatim copying and redistribution of this article are permitted in all media for any purpose, provided this notice is preserved along with the article's original DOI. ; BACKGROUND In their safety evaluations of bisphenol A (BPA), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and a counterpart in Europe, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), have given special prominence to two industry-funded studies that adhered to standards defined by Good Laboratory Practices (GLP). These same agencies have given much less weight in risk assessments to a large number of independently replicated non-GLP studies conducted with government funding by the leading experts in various fields of science from around the world. OBJECTIVES We reviewed differences between industry-funded GLP studies of BPA conducted by commercial laboratories for regulatory purposes and non-GLP studies conducted in academic and government laboratories to identify hazards and molecular mechanisms mediating adverse effects. We examined the methods and results in the GLP studies that were pivotal in the draft decision of the U.S. FDA declaring BPA safe in relation to findings from studies that were competitive for U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding, peer-reviewed for publication in leading journals, subject to independent replication, but rejected by the U.S. FDA for regulatory purposes. DISCUSSION Although the U.S. FDA and EFSA have deemed two industry-funded GLP studies of BPA to be superior to hundreds of studies funded by the U.S. NIH and NIH counterparts in other countries, the GLP studies on which the agencies based their decisions have serious conceptual and methodologic flaws. In addition, the U.S. FDA and EFSA have mistakenly assumed that GLP yields valid and reliable scientific findings (i.e., "good science"). Their rationale for favoring GLP studies over hundreds of publically funded studies ignores the central factor in determining the reliability and validity of scientific findings, namely, independent replication, and use of the most appropriate and sensitive state-of-the-art assays, neither of which is an expectation of industry-funded GLP research. CONCLUSIONS Public health decisions should be based on studies using appropriate protocols with appropriate controls and the most sensitive assays, not GLP. Relevant NIH-funded research using state-of-the-art techniques should play a prominent role in safety evaluations of chemicals.