Receptor ERα is expressed endogenously in these cells. In contrast the HeLa9903-reporter recommended by the OECD and EPA (OECD, 2009) supplies the ERE-driven luciferase construct as well as the ERα transgenetically. Nonetheless, the previously reported estrogen amplifying effect of TCC was also seen with the HeLa9903 cells. In addition, the exposure triggered increase of luminescence and the dose response curves for TCC were comparable to those published by Ahn et al. (2008). However, TCC selleck did not show any further xenoestrogenic activity in a subsequent proliferation assay (Soto et al., 1995). Moreover, the expression of known estrogen responsive genes remained

unaffected as well. The only notable exception was CYP1B1, a known target gene of the ER as well as the AhR ( Tsuchiya et al., 2004 and Shen et al., 1994). Altogether the results suggest that the effects seen with TCC in luciferase-based transactivation assays are due to interference with firefly luciferase, rather than being triggered by ERα or the AR. Similar false positives have been reported in previous high-throughput screens (Thorne et al., 2010). A recent screen of the NIH Molecular Libraries Small

Molecule Repository identified 12% of the 360,864 molecules to be inhibitors of firefly luciferase (Thorne et al., 2012). In some cases inhibition paradoxically resulted in an increase of the luminescence signal, Sirolimus probably because of enzyme stabilisation (Sotoca et al., 2010). Such a mode of action is also supported by the PubChem Bioassay Database (http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) which quotes a preliminary EC50 of 8.9 μM TCC for the inhibition of luciferase. Thermal shift assays indeed confirmed a strong stabilising interaction of TCC with luciferase Selleck Etoposide at ligand concentrations above 5 μM. The effective concentration for TCC is likely to be even lower in cellular assays as these have more physiological buffer conditions. In absence of a direct receptor interaction

the androgenic and estrogenic effects seen with TCC in vivo are thus likely to be the result of a mechanism different from classical AR- or ER-signalling ( Chen et al., 2008, Duleba et al., 2011 and Chung et al., 2011). A prime target for endocrine crosstalk is the AhR, which is known to influence the cell’s response to estrogens as well as androgens ( Morrow et al., 2004, Wormke et al., 2003 and Ohtake et al., 2007). Our results indeed show an interference of TCC with the AhR regulon. In presence of the model substrate TCDD it acts as an antagonist for the AhR, effectively inhibiting TCDD-triggered induction of CYP1A1. In addition, exposure to TCC was sufficient to increase transcription of CYP1A1, while co-exposure together with estrogens led to strong induction of CYP1A1 and CYP1B1. As classical phase I enzymes CYP1B1 and CYP1A1 are regulated by AhR, the latter exclusively so ( Nebert et al., 2004). Monooxygenase CYP1B1 on the other hand is known to be also co-regulated by estrogens ( Tsuchiya et al.