SNAPSHOT

Key Event Component

Evidence for Perturbation by Stressor

---

Overview for Molecular Initiating Event

The AHR can be activated by several structurally diverse chemicals, but binds preferentially to planar halogenated aromatic hydrocarbons and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Dioxin-like compounds (DLCs), which include polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs), polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs) and certain polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), are among the most potent AHR ligands^[38]. Only a subset of PCDD, PCDF and PCB congeners has been shown to bind to the AHR and cause toxic effects to those elicited by TCDD. Until recently, TCDD was considered to be the most potent DLC in birds^[39]; however, recent reports indicate that 2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorodibenzofuran (PeCDF) is more potent than TCDD in some species of birds.^{[40][13][41][21][42][43]} When screened for their ability to induce aryl hydrocarbon hydroxylase (AHH) activity, dioxins with chlorine atoms at a minimum of three out of the four lateral ring positions, and with at least one non-chlorinated ring position are the most active^[44]. Of the dioxin-like PCBs, non-ortho congeners are the most toxicologically active, while mono-ortho PCBs are generally less potent^[45][9]. Chlorine substitution at ortho positions increases the energetic costs of assuming the coplanar conformation required for binding to the AHR ^[45]. Thus, a smaller proportion of mono-ortho PCB molecules are able to bind to the AHR and elicit toxic effects, resulting in reduced potency of these congeners. Other PCB congeners, such as di-ortho substituted PCBs, are very weak AHR agonists and do not likely contribute to dioxin-like effects ^[9].

• Contrary to studies of birds and mammals, even the most potent mono-ortho PCBs bind to AhRs of fishes with very low affinity, if at all (Abnet et al 1999; Doering et al 2014; 2015; Eisner et al 2016; Van den Berg et al 1998).

The role of the AHR in mediating the toxic effects of planar hydrophobic contaminants has been well studied, however the endogenous role of the AHR is less clear ^[1]. Some endogenous and natural substances, including prostaglandin PGG2 and the tryptophan derivatives indole-3-carbinol, 6-formylindolo[3,2-b]carbazole (FICZ) and kynurenic acid can bind to and activate the AHR. ^{[6][46][47][48][49]} The AHR is thought to have important endogenous roles in reproduction, liver and heart development, cardiovascular function, immune function and cell cycle regulation ^{[50][38][51][52][53][54][46][55][56][57]} and activation of the AHR by DLCs may therefore adversely affect these processes.

Dibenzo-p-dioxin

Denison, M. S., Soshilov, A. A., He, G., DeGroot, D. E., and Zhao, B. (2011). Exactly the same but different: promiscuity and diversity in the molecular mechanisms of action of the aryl hydrocarbon (dioxin) receptor. Toxicol.Sci. 124, 1-22.

Polychlorinated biphenyl

Of the dioxin-like PCBs, non-ortho congeners are the most toxicologically active, while mono-ortho PCBs are generally less potent (McFarland and Clarke 1989; Safe 1994). Chlorine substitution at ortho positions increases the energetic costs of assuming the coplanar conformation required for binding to the AHR (McFarland and Clarke 1989). Thus, a smaller proportion of mono-ortho PCB molecules are able to bind to the AHR and elicit toxic effects, resulting in reduced potency of these congeners. Other PCB congeners, such as di-ortho substituted PCBs, are very weak AHR agonists and do not likely contribute to dioxin-like effects (Safe 1994).

 

Safe, S. (1994). Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs): Environmental impact, biochemical and toxic responses, and implications for risk assessment. Critical Reviews in Toxicology 24, 87-149.

McFarland, V. A., and Clarke, J. U. (1989). Environmental occurrence, abundance, and potential toxicity of polychlorinated biphenyl congeners: Considerations for a congener-specific analysis. Environ.Health Perspect. 81, 225-239.

Polychlorinated dibenzofurans

Denison, M. S., Soshilov, A. A., He, G., DeGroot, D. E., and Zhao, B. (2011). Exactly the same but different: promiscuity and diversity in the molecular mechanisms of action of the aryl hydrocarbon (dioxin) receptor. Toxicol.Sci. 124, 1-22.

Hexachlorobenzene

Cripps, D. J., Peters, H. A., Gocmen, A., and Dogramici, I. (1984) Porphyria turcica due to hexachlorobenzene: a 20 to 30 year follow-up study on 204 patients. Br. J Dermatol. 111 (4), 413-422.

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)

PAHs are pontent AHR agonists, but due to their rapid metabolism, they cause a transient alteration in AHR-mediated gene expression; this property results in a very different toxicity profile relative to persistent AHR-agonists such as dioxin-like compounds (Denison et al. 2011).

 

Denison, M. S., Soshilov, A. A., He, G., DeGroot, D. E., and Zhao, B. (2011). Exactly the same but different: promiscuity and diversity in the molecular mechanisms of action of the aryl hydrocarbon (dioxin) receptor. Toxicol.Sci. 124, 1-22.

Domain of Applicability

Key Event Description

The AHR Receptor

The aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AHR) is a ligand-activated transcription factor that belongs to the basic helix-loop-helix Per-ARNT-Sim (bHLH-PAS) superfamily and consists of three domains: the DNA-binding domain (DBD), ligand binding domain (LBD) and transactivation domain (TAD)^[1]. Other members of this superfamily include the AHR nuclear translocator (ARNT), which acts as a dimerization partner of the AHR ^[2][3]; Per, a circadian transcription factor; and Sim, the “single-minded” protein involved in neuronal development ^[4][5]. This group of proteins shares a highly conserved PAS domain and is involved in the detection of and adaptation to environmental change^[4].

Investigations of invertebrates possessing early homologs of the AhR suggest that the AhR evolutionarily functioned in regulation of the cell cycle, cellular proliferation and differentiation, and cell-to-cell communications (Hahn et al 2002). However, critical functions in angiogenesis, regulation of the immune system, neuronal processes, metabolism, development of the heart and other organ systems, and detoxification have emerged sometime in early vertebrate evolution (Duncan et al., 1998; Emmons et al., 1999; Lahvis and Bradfield, 1998).

The molecular Initiating Event

The molecular mechanism for AHR-mediated activation of gene expression is presented in Figure 1. In its unliganded form, the AHR is part of a cytosolic complex containing heat shock protein 90 (HSP90), the HSP90 co-chaperone p23 and AHR-interacting protein (AIP)^[6]. Upon ligand binding, the AHR migrates to the nucleus where it dissociates from the cytosolic complex and forms a heterodimer with ARNT^[7]. The AHR-ARNT complex then binds to a xenobiotic response element (XRE) found in the promoter of an AHR-regulated gene and recruits co-regulators such as CREB binding protein/p300, steroid receptor co-activator (SRC) 1, SRC-2, SRC-3 and nuclear receptor interacting protein 1, leading to induction or repression of gene expression^[6]. Expression levels of several genes, including phase I (e.g. cytochrome P450 (CYP) 1A, CYP1B, CYP2A) and phase II enzymes (e.g. uridine diphosphate glucuronosyl transferase (UDP-GT), glutathione S-transferases (GSTs)), as well as genes involved in cell proliferation (transforming growth factor-beta, interleukin-1 beta), cell cycle regulation (p27, jun-B) and apoptosis (Bax), are regulated through this mechanism ^[6][8][7][9].

AHR Isoforms

• Over time the AhR has undergone gene duplication and diversification in vertebrates, which has resulted in multiple clades of AhR, namely AhR1, AhR2, and AhR3 (Hahn 2002).
• Fishes and birds express AhR1s and AhR2s, while mammals express a single AhR that is homologous to the AhR1 (Hahn 2002; Hahn et al 2006).
• The AhR3 is poorly understood and known only from some cartilaginous fishes (Hahn 2002).
• Little is known about diversity of AhRs in reptiles and amphibians (Hahn et al 2002).
• In some taxa, subsequent genome duplication events have further led to multiple isoforms of AhRs in some species, with up to four isoforms of the AhR (α, β, δ, γ) having been identified in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) (Hansson et al 2004).
• Although homologs of the AhR have been identified in some invertebrates, compared to vertebrates these AhRs have differences in binding of ligands in the species investigated to date (Hahn 2002; Hahn et al 1994).

 

Roles of isoforms in birds:

Two AHR isoforms (AHR1 and AHR2) have been identified in the black-footed albatross (Phoebastria nigripes), great cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo) and domestic chicken (Gallus gallus domesticus)^[10]. AHR1 mRNA levels were similar in the kidney, heart, lung, spleen, brain, gonad and intestine from the great cormorant but were lower in muscle and pancreas. AHR2 expression was mainly observed in the liver, but was also detected in gonad, brain and intestine. AHR1 levels represented a greater proportion (80%) of total AHR levels than AHR2 in the cormorant liver^[10], and while both AHR isoforms bound to TCDD, AHR2 was less effective at inducing TCDD-dependent transactivation compared to AHR1 in black-footed albatross, great cormorant and domestic chicken^[11][10].

• AhR1 and AhR2 both bind and are activated by TCDD in vitro (Yasui et al 2007).
• AhR1 has greater binding affinity and sensitivity to activation by TCDD relative to AhR2 (Yasui et al 2007).
• AhR1 is believed to mediate toxicities of DLCs, while AhR2 has no known role in toxicities (Farmahin et al 2012; Farmahin et al 2013; Manning et al 2012).

Roles of isoforms in fishes:

• AhR1 and AhR2 both bind and are activated by TCDD in vitro (Bak et al 2013; Doering et al 2014; 2015; Karchner et al 1999; 2005).
• AhR1 has greater sensitivity to activation by TCDD than AhR2 in red seabream (Pagrus major), white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus), and lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) (Bak et al 2013; Doering et al 2014; 2015)
• AhR2 has greater binding affinity or activation by TCDD than AhR1 in zebrafish (Danio rerio) and mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus) (Karchner et al 1999; 2005).
• AhR2 is believed to mediate toxicities in fishes, while AhR1 has no known role in toxicities. Specifically, knockdown of AhR2 protects against toxicities of dioxin-like compounds (DLCs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in zebrafish (Danio rerio) and mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus), while knockdown of AhR1 offers no protection (Clark et al 2010; Prasch et al 2003; Van Tiem & Di Giulio 2011).

Roles of isoforms in amphibians and reptiles:

• Less is known about AhRs of amphibians or reptiles.
• AhR1 is believed to mediate toxicities in amphibians (Hahn 2002; Lavine et al 2005; Oka et al 2016; Shoots et al 2015). However, all AhRs of amphibians that have been investigated have very low affinity for TCDD (Hahn 2002; Lavine et al 2005; Oka et al 2016; Shoots et al 2015).
• Both AhR1s and AhR2 of American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) are activated by agonists with comparable sensitivities (Oka et al 2016). AhRs of no other reptiles have been investigated.

How it is Measured or Detected

Methods that have been previously reviewed and approved by a recognized authority should be included in the Overview section above. All other methods, including those well established in the published literature, should be described here. Consider the following criteria when describing each method: 1. Is the assay fit for purpose? 2. Is the assay directly or indirectly (i.e. a surrogate) related to a key event relevant to the final adverse effect in question? 3. Is the assay repeatable? 4. Is the assay reproducible?

Transactivation Reporter Gene Assays (recommended approach)

Transient transfection transactivation

Transient transfection transactivation is the most common method for evaluating nuclear receptor activation^[12]. Full-length AHR cDNAs are cloned into an expression vector along with a reporter gene construct (chimeric luciferase, P-lactamase or CAT reporter vectors containing the appropriate response elements for the gene of interest). There are a number of commercially available cell lines that can serve as recipients for these vectors (CV-1, HuH7, FLC-7, LS174T, LS180 MCF-7, HEC1, LLC-PK1, HEK293, HepG2, and Caco-2 cells)^[12]. The greatest advantage of using transfected cells, rather than primary cell cultures, is the assurance that the nuclear receptor of interest is responsible for the observed induction. This would not be possible in a primary cell culture due to the co-regulation of different receptors for the same target genes. This model makes it easy to compare the responsiveness of the AHR across multiple species under the same conditions simply by switching out the AHR clone. One disadvantage to the transient transfection assay is the inherent variability associated with transfection efficiency, leading to a movement towards the use of stable cell lines containing the nuclear receptor and reporter gene linked to the appropriate response elements^[12].

Luciferase reporter gene (LRG) assay

The described luciferase reporter gene (LRG) assays have been used to investigate activation of AhRs of:

• Humans (Homo sapiens) (Abnet et al 1999) 
• Species of birds, namely chicken (Gallus gallus), ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus), Japanese quail (Coturnix japonica), and common tern (Sterna hirundo) (Farmahin et al 2012; Manning et al 2013), Mutant AhR1s with ligand binding domains resembling those of at least 86 avian species have also been investigated (Farmahin et al 2013). AhR2s of birds have only been investigated in black-footed albatross (Phoebastria nigripes) and common cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo) (Yasio et al 2007).
• American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) is the only reptile for which AhR activation has been investigated (Oka et al 2016), AhR1A, AhR1B, and AhR2 of American alligator were assayed (Oka et al 2016).
• AhR1 of two amphibians have been investigated, namely African clawed frog (Xenopus laevis) and salamander (Ambystoma mexicanum) (Lavine et al 2005; Shoots et al 2015; Ohi et al 2003),
• AhR1s and AhR2s of several species of fish have been investigated, namely Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), Atlantic tomcod (Microgadus tomcod), white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus), rainbow trout (Onchorhynchys mykiss), red seabream (Pagrus major), lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens), and zebrafish (Danio rerio) (Andreasen et al 2002; Abnet et al 1999; Bak et al 2013; Doering et al 2014; 2015; Evans et al 2005; Hansson & Hahn 2008; Karchner et al 1999; Tanguay et al 1999; Wirgin et al 2011).

For demonstrative purposes, a luciferase reporter gene assay used to measure AHR1-mediated transactivation for avian species is described here. However, comparable assays are utilized for investigating AHR1s and AHR2s of all taxa. A monkey kidney cell line (Cos-7) that has low endogenous AHR1 expression was transfected with the appropriate avian AHR1 clone, cormorant ARNT1, a CYP1A5 firefly luciferase reporter construct and a Renilla luciferase vector to control for transfection efficiency. After seeding, the cells were exposed to DLC and luciferase activity was measured using a luminometer. Luminescence, which is proportional to the extent of AHR activation, is expressed as the ratio of firefly luciferase units to Renilla luciferase units ^[13]. This particular assay was modified from its original version to increase throughput efficiency; (a) cells were seeded in 96-well plates rather than Petri dishes or 48- well plates, (b) DLCs were added directly to the wells without changing the cell culture medium, and (c) the same 96-well plates were used to measure luminescence without lysing the cells and transferring to another plate. Similar reporter gene assays have been used to measure AHR1 activation in domestic and wild species of birds, including the chicken, ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus), Japanese quail (Coturnix japonica), great cormorant, black-footed albatross and peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus).^{[14][13][15][11][16][17]}

Transactivation in stable cell lines

Stable cell lines have been developed and purified to the extent that each cell contains both the nuclear receptor and appropriate reporter vector, eliminating the variability associated with transfection ^[12]. A stable human cell line containing a luciferase reporter driven by multiple dioxin response elements has been developed that is useful in identifying AhR agonists and antagonists^[18]. An added benefit of this model is the potential to multiplex 3 assays in a single well: receptor activation, cell viability and enzyme activity^[12]. Such assays are used extensively in drug discovery due to their high throughput efficiency, and may serve just as useful for risk assessment purposes.

Ligand-Binding Assays

Ligand binding assays measure the ability of a test compound to compete with a labeled, high-affinity reference ligand for the LBD of a nuclear receptor. It is important to note that ligand binding does not necessitate receptor activation and therefore cannot distinguish between agonists and antagonists; however, binding affinities of AHR ligands are highly correlated with chemical potencies^[19] and can explain differences in species sensitivities to DLCs^[20][21][22]; they are therefore worth mentioning. Binding affinity and efficacy have been used to develop structure-activity relationships for AHR disruption^[20][23] that are potentially useful in risk-assessment. There has been tremendous progress in the development of ligand-binding assays for nuclear receptors that use homogenous assay formats (no wash steps) allowing for the detection of low-affinity ligands, many of which do not require a radiolabel and are amenable to high throughput screening^[24][12]. This author however was unable to find specific examples of such assays in the context of AHR binding and therefore some classic radioligand assays are described instead.

Hydroxyapatite (HAP) binding assay

The HAP binding assay makes use of an in vitro transcription/translation method to synthesize the AHR protein, which is then incubated with radiolabeled TDCPP and a HAP pellet. The occupied protein adsorbs to the HAP and the radioactivity is measured to determine saturation binding. An additional ligand can also be included in the mixture in order to determine its binding affinity relative to TCDD (competitive binding)^[25][22]. This assay is simple, repeatable and reproducible; however, it is insensitive to weak ligand-receptor interactions^[22][21][26].

Whole cell filtration binding assay

Dold and Greenlee^[27] developed a method to detect specific binding of TCDD to whole mammalian cells in culture and was later modified by Farmahin et al.^[21] for avian species. The cultured cells are incubated with radiolabeled TCDD with or without the presence of a competing ligand and filtered. The occupied protein adsorbs onto the filter and the radioactivity is measured to determine saturation binging and/or competitive binding. This assay is able to detect weak ligand-receptor interactions that are below the detection limit of the HAP assay^[21].

Protein-DNA Interaction Assays

The active AHR complexed with ARNT can be measured using protein-DNA interaction assays. Two methods are described in detail by Perez-Romero and Imperiale^[28]. Chromatin immunoprecipitation measures the interaction of proteins with specific genomic regions in vivo. It involves the treatment of cells with formaldehyde to crosslink neighboring protein-protein and protein-DNA molecules. Nuclear fractions are isolated, the genomic DNA is sheared, and nuclear lysates are used in immunoprecipitations with an antibody against the protein of interest. After reversal of the crosslinking, the associated DNA fragments are sequenced. Enrichment of specific DNA sequences represents regions on the genome that the protein of interest is associated with in vivo. Electrophoretic mobility shift assay (EMSA) provides a rapid method to study DNA-binding protein interactions in vitro. This relies on the fact that complexes of protein and DNA migrate through a nondenaturing polyacrylamide gel more slowly than free DNA fragments. The protein-DNA complex components are then identified with appropriate antibodies. The EMSA assay was found to be consistent with the LRG assay in chicken hepatoma cells dosed with dioxin-like compounds^[29].

In silico Approaches

In silico homology modeling of the ligand binding domain of the AHR in combination with molecular docking simulations can provide valuable insight into the transactivation-potential of a diverse array of AHR ligands.  Such models have been developed for multiple AHR isoforms and ligands (high/low affinity, endogenous and synthetic, agonists and antagonists), and can accurately predict ligand potency based on their structure and physicochemical properties (Bonati et al 2017; Hirano et al 2015; Sovadinova et al 2006).

References

1. ↑ ^{1.0 1.1} Okey, A. B. (2007). An aryl hydrocarbon receptor odyssey to the shores of toxicology: the Deichmann Lecture, International Congress of Toxicology-XI. Toxicol.Sci. 98, 5-38.
2. ↑ Hoffman, E. C., Reyes, H., Chu, F. F., Sander, F., Conley, L. H., Brooks, B. A., and Hankinson, O. (1991). Cloning of a factor required for activity of the Ah (dioxin) receptor. Science 252, 954-958.
3. ↑ ^{3.0 3.1} Poland, A., Glover, E., and Kende, A. S. (1976). Stereospecific, high affinity binding of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin by hepatic cytosol. Evidence that the binding species is receptor for induction of aryl hydrocarbon hydroxylase. J.Biol.Chem. 251, 4936-4946.
4. ↑ ^{4.0 4.1} Gu, Y. Z., Hogenesch, J. B., and Bradfield, C. A. (2000). The PAS superfamily: sensors of environmental and developmental signals. Annu.Rev.Pharmacol.Toxicol. 40, 519-561.
5. ↑ Kewley, R. J., Whitelaw, M. L., and Chapman-Smith, A. (2004). The mammalian basic helix-loop-helix/PAS family of transcriptional regulators. Int.J.Biochem.Cell Biol. 36, 189-204.
6. ↑ ^{6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3} Fujii-Kuriyama, Y., and Kawajiri, K. (2010). Molecular mechanisms of the physiological functions of the aryl hydrocarbon (dioxin) receptor, a multifunctional regulator that senses and responds to environmental stimuli. Proc.Jpn.Acad.Ser.B Phys.Biol.Sci. 86, 40-53.
7. ↑ ^{7.0 7.1} Mimura, J., and Fujii-Kuriyama, Y. (2003). Functional role of AhR in the expression of toxic effects by TCDD. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta - General Subjects 1619, 263-268.
8. ↑ Giesy, J. P., Kannan, K., Blankenship, A. L., Jones, P. D., and Newsted, J. L. (2006). Toxicology of PCBs and related compounds. In Endocrine Disruption Biological Bases for Health Effects in Wildlife and Humans (D. O. Norris, and J. A. Carr, Eds.), pp. 245-331. Oxford University Press, New York.
9. ↑ ^{9.0 9.1 9.2} Safe, S. (1994). Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs): Environmental impact, biochemical and toxic responses, and implications for risk assessment. Critical Reviews in Toxicology 24, 87-149.
10. ↑ ^{10.0 10.1 10.2} Yasui, T., Kim, E. Y., Iwata, H., Franks, D. G., Karchner, S. I., Hahn, M. E., and Tanabe, S. (2007). Functional characterization and evolutionary history of two aryl hydrocarbon receptor isoforms (AhR1 and AhR2) from avian species. Toxicol.Sci. 99, 101-117.
11. ↑ ^{11.0 11.1} Lee, J. S., Kim, E. Y., and Iwata, H. (2009). Dioxin activation of CYP1A5 promoter/enhancer regions from two avian species, common cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo) and chicken (Gallus gallus): association with aryl hydrocarbon receptor 1 and 2 isoforms. Toxicol.Appl.Pharmacol. 234, 1-13.
12. ↑ ^{12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 12.5} Raucy, J. L., and Lasker, J. M. (2010). Current in vitro high throughput screening approaches to assess nuclear receptor activation. Curr. Drug Metab 11 (9), 806-814.
13. ↑ ^{13.0 13.1 13.2} Farmahin, R., Wu, D., Crump, D., Hervé, J. C., Jones, S. P., Hahn, M. E., Karchner, S. I., Giesy, J. P., Bursian, S. J., Zwiernik, M. J., and Kennedy, S. W. (2012). Sequence and in vitro function of chicken, ring-necked pheasant, and Japanese quail AHR1 predict in vivo sensitivity to dioxins. Environ.Sci.Technol. 46, 2967-2975.
14. ↑ ^{14.0 14.1 14.2 14.3} Farmahin, R., Manning, G. E., Crump, D., Wu, D., Mundy, L. J., Jones, S. P., Hahn, M. E., Karchner, S. I., Giesy, J. P., Bursian, S. J., Zwiernik, M. J., Fredricks, T. B., and Kennedy, S. W. (2013b). Amino acid sequence of the ligand binding domain of the aryl hydrocarbon receptor 1 (AHR1) predicts sensitivity of wild birds to effects of dioxin-like compounds. Toxicol.Sci. 131, 139-152.
15. ↑ Fujisawa, N., Ikenaka, Y., Kim, E. Y., Lee, J. S., Iwata, H., and Ishizuka, M. (2012). Molecular evidence predicts aryl hydrocarbon receptor ligand insensitivity in the peregrine falcon (Falco peregrines). European Journal of Wildlife Research 58, 167-175.
16. ↑ ^{16.0 16.1 16.2} Manning, G. E., Farmahin, R., Crump, D., Jones, S. P., Klein, J., Konstantinov, A., Potter, D., and Kennedy, S. W. (2012). A luciferase reporter gene assay and aryl hydrocarbon receptor 1 genotype predict the embryolethality of polychlorinated biphenyls in avian species. Toxicol.Appl.Pharmacol. 263, 390-399.
17. ↑ Mol, T. L., Kim, E. Y., Ishibashi, H., and Iwata, H. (2012). In vitro transactivation potencies of black-footed albatross (Phoebastria nigripes) AHR1 and AHR2 by dioxins to predict CYP1A expression in the wild population. Environ.Sci.Technol. 46, 525-533.
18. ↑ Yueh, M. F., Kawahara, M., and Raucy, J. (2005). Cell-based high-throughput bioassays to assess induction and inhibition of CYP1A enzymes. Toxicol. In Vitro 19 (2), 275-287.
19. ↑ ^{19.0 19.1} Poland, A., and Knutson, J. C. (1982). 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and related halogenated aromatic hydrocarbons: examination of the mechanism of toxicity. Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 22, 517-554.
20. ↑ ^{20.0 20.1} Hestermann, E. V., Stegeman, J. J., and Hahn, M. E. (2000). Relative contributions of affinity and intrinsic efficacy to aryl hydrocarbon receptor ligand potency. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol 168 (2), 160-172.
21. ↑ ^{21.0 21.1 21.2 21.3 21.4} Farmahin, R., Jones, S. P., Crump, D., Hahn, M. E., Giesy, J. P., Zwiernik, M. J., Bursian, S. J., and Kennedy, S. W. (2014). Species-specific relative AHR1 binding affinities of 2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorodibenzofuran explain avian species differences in its relative potency. Comp Biochem. Physiol C. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 161C, 21-25.
22. ↑ ^{22.0 22.1 22.2 22.3 22.4 22.5 22.6} Karchner, S. I., Franks, D. G., Kennedy, S. W., and Hahn, M. E. (2006). The molecular basis for differential dioxin sensitivity in birds: Role of the aryl hydrocarbon receptor. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A 103 (16), 6252-6257.
23. ↑ Lee, S., Shin, W. H., Hong, S., Kang, H., Jung, D., Yim, U. H., Shim, W. J., Khim, J. S., Seok, C., Giesy, J. P., and Choi, K. (2015). Measured and predicted affinities of binding and relative potencies to activate the AhR of PAHs and their alkylated analogues. Chemosphere 139, 23-29.
24. ↑ Jones, S. A., Parks, D. J., and Kliewer, S. A. (2003). Cell-free ligand binding assays for nuclear receptors. Methods Enzymol. 364, 53-71.
25. ↑ Gasiewicz, T. A., and Neal, R. A. (1982). The examination and quantitation of tissue cytosolic receptors for 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin using hydroxylapatite. Anal. Biochem. 124 (1), 1-11.
26. ↑ Nakai, J. S., and Bunce, N. J. (1995). Characterization of the Ah receptor from human placental tissue. J Biochem. Toxicol. 10 (3), 151-159.
27. ↑ Dold, K. M., and Greenlee, W. F. (1990). Filtration assay for quantitation of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) specific binding to whole cells in culture. Anal. Biochem. 184 (1), 67-73.
28. ↑ Perez-Romero, P., and Imperiale, M. J. (2007). Assaying protein-DNA interactions in vivo and in vitro using chromatin immunoprecipitation and electrophoretic mobility shift assays. Methods Mol. Med. 131, 123-139.
29. ↑ Heid, S. E., Walker, M. K., and Swanson, H. I. (2001). Correlation of cardiotoxicity mediated by halogenated aromatic hydrocarbons to aryl hydrocarbon receptor activation. Toxicol. Sci 61 (1), 187-196.
30. ↑ ^{30.0 30.1} Ema, M., Ohe, N., Suzuki, M., Mimura, J., Sogawa, K., Ikawa, S., and Fujii-Kuriyama, Y. (1994). Dioxin binding activities of polymorphic forms of mouse and human arylhydrocarbon receptors. J.Biol.Chem. 269, 27337-27343.
31. ↑ ^{31.0 31.1} Poland, A., Palen, D., and Glover, E. (1994). Analysis of the four alleles of the murine aryl hydrocarbon receptor. Mol.Pharmacol. 46, 915-921.
32. ↑ Backlund, M., and Ingelman-Sundberg, M. (2004). Different structural requirements of the ligand binding domain of the aryl hydrocarbon receptor for high- and low-affinity ligand binding and receptor activation. Mol.Pharmacol. 65, 416-425.
33. ↑ Murray, I. A., Reen, R. K., Leathery, N., Ramadoss, P., Bonati, L., Gonzalez, F. J., Peters, J. M., and Perdew, G. H. (2005). Evidence that ligand binding is a key determinant of Ah receptor-mediated transcriptional activity. Arch.Biochem.Biophys. 442, 59-71.
34. ↑ Pandini, A., Denison, M. S., Song, Y., Soshilov, A. A., and Bonati, L. (2007). Structural and functional characterization of the aryl hydrocarbon receptor ligand binding domain by homology modeling and mutational analysis. Biochemistry 46, 696-708.
35. ↑ ^{35.0 35.1 35.2} Pandini, A., Soshilov, A. A., Song, Y., Zhao, J., Bonati, L., and Denison, M. S. (2009). Detection of the TCDD binding-fingerprint within the Ah receptor ligand binding domain by structurally driven mutagenesis and functional analysis. Biochemistry 48, 5972-5983.
36. ↑ Ramadoss, P., and Perdew, G. H. (2004). Use of 2-azido-3-[125I]iodo-7,8-dibromodibenzo-p-dioxin as a probe to determine the relative ligand affinity of human versus mouse aryl hydrocarbon receptor in cultured cells. Mol.Pharmacol. 66, 129-136.
37. ↑ ^{37.0 37.1 37.2} Head, J. A., Hahn, M. E., and Kennedy, S. W. (2008). Key amino acids in the aryl hydrocarbon receptor predict dioxin sensitivity in avian species. Environ.Sci.Technol. 42, 7535-7541.
38. ↑ ^{38.0 38.1} Denison, M. S., Soshilov, A. A., He, G., DeGroot, D. E., and Zhao, B. (2011). Exactly the same but different: promiscuity and diversity in the molecular mechanisms of action of the aryl hydrocarbon (dioxin) receptor. Toxicol.Sci. 124, 1-22.
39. ↑ van den Berg, M., Birnbaum, L. S., Bosveld, A. T., Brunström, B., Cook, P., Feeley, M., Giesy, J. P., Hanberg, A., Hasegawa, R., Kennedy, S. W., Kubiak, T. J., Larsen, J. C., Van Leeuwen, F. X. R., Liem, A. K. D., Nolt, C., Peterson, R. E., Poellinger, L., Safe, S., Schrenk, D., Tillitt, D. E., Tysklind, M., Younes, M., Wærn, F., and Zacharewski, T. R. (1998). Toxic equivalency factors (TEFs) for PCBs, PCDDs, PCDFs for humans and wildlife. Environ.Health Perspect. 106, 775-792.
40. ↑ Cohen-Barnhouse, A. M., Zwiernik, M. J., Link, J. E., Fitzgerald, S. D., Kennedy, S. W., Hervé, J. C., Giesy, J. P., Wiseman, S. B., Yang, Y., Jones, P. D., Wan, Y., Collins, B., Newsted, J. L., Kay, D. P., and Bursian, S. J. (2011b). Sensitivity of Japanese quail (Coturnix japonica), Common pheasant (Phasianus colchicus), and White Leghorn chicken (Gallus gallus domesticus) embryos to in ovo exposure to TCDD, PeCDF, and TCDF. Toxicol.Sci. 119, 93-103.
41. ↑ Farmahin, R., Crump, D., Jones, S. P., Mundy, L. J., and Kennedy, S. W. (2013a). Cytochrome P4501A induction in primary cultures of embryonic European starling hepatocytes exposed to TCDD, PeCDF and TCDF. Ecotoxicology 22(4), 731-739.
42. ↑ Hervé, J. C., Crump, D., Jones, S. P., Mundy, L. J., Giesy, J. P., Zwiernik, M. J., Bursian, S. J., Jones, P. D., Wiseman, S. B., Wan, Y., and Kennedy, S. W. (2010a). Cytochrome P4501A induction by 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and two chlorinated dibenzofurans in primary hepatocyte cultures of three avian species. Toxicol. Sci. 113(2), 380-391.
43. ↑ Hervé, J. C., Crump, D. L., McLaren, K. K., Giesy, J. P., Zwiernik, M. J., Bursian, S. J., and Kennedy, S. W. (2010b). 2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorodibenzofuran is a more potent cytochrome P4501A inducer than 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in herring gull hepatocyte cultures. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 29(9), 2088-2095.
44. ↑ Poland, A., and Glover, E. (1973). Studies on the mechanism of toxicity of the chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins. Environ.Health Perspect. 5, 245-251.
45. ↑ ^{45.0 45.1} McFarland, V. A., and Clarke, J. U. (1989). Environmental occurrence, abundance, and potential toxicity of polychlorinated biphenyl congeners: Considerations for a congener-specific analysis. Environ.Health Perspect. 81, 225-239.
46. ↑ ^{46.0 46.1} Omiecinski, C. J., Vanden Heuvel, J. P., Perdew, G. H., and Peters, J. M. (2011). Xenobiotic metabolism, disposition, and regulation by receptors: from biochemical phenomenon to predictors of major toxicities. Toxicol.Sci. 120 Suppl 1, S49-S75.
47. ↑ Swedenborg, E., and Pongratz, I. (2010). AhR and ARNT modulate ER signaling. Toxicology 268, 132-138.
48. ↑ Diani-Moore, S., Ma, Y., Labitzke, E., Tao, H., David, W. J., Anderson, J., Chen, Q., Gross, S. S., and Rifkind, A. B. (2011). Discovery and biological characterization of 1-(1H-indol-3-yl)-9H-pyrido[3,4-b]indole as an aryl hydrocarbon receptor activator generated by photoactivation of tryptophan by sunlight. Chem. Biol. Interact. 193(2), 119-128.
49. ↑ Wincent, E., Bengtsson, J., Mohammadi, B. A., Alsberg, T., Luecke, S., Rannug, U., and Rannug, A. (2012). Inhibition of cytochrome P4501-dependent clearance of the endogenous agonist FICZ as a mechanism for activation of the aryl hydrocarbon receptor. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A 109(12), 4479-4484.
50. ↑ Baba, T., Mimura, J., Nakamura, N., Harada, N., Yamamoto, M., Morohashi, K., and Fujii-Kuriyama, Y. (2005). Intrinsic function of the aryl hydrocarbon (dioxin) receptor as a key factor in female reproduction. Mol.Cell Biol. 25, 10040-10051.
51. ↑ Fernandez-Salguero, P. M., Pineau, T., Hilbert, D. M., McPhail, T., Lee, S. S., Kimura, S., Nebert, D. W., Rudikoff, S., Ward, J. M., and Gonzalez, F. J. (1995). Immune system impairment and hepatic fibrosis in mice lacking the dioxin-binding Ah receptor. Science 268, 722-726.
52. ↑ Ichihara, S., Yamada, Y., Ichihara, G., Nakajima, T., Li, P., Kondo, T., Gonzalez, F. J., and Murohara, T. (2007). A role for the aryl hydrocarbon receptor in regulation of ischemia-induced angiogenesis. Arterioscler.Thromb.Vasc.Biol. 27, 1297-1304.
53. ↑ Lahvis, G. P., Lindell, S. L., Thomas, R. S., McCuskey, R. S., Murphy, C., Glover, E., Bentz, M., Southard, J., and Bradfield, C. A. (2000). Portosystemic shunting and persistent fetal vascular structures in aryl hydrocarbon receptor-deficient mice. Proc.Natl.Acad.Sci U.S.A 97, 10442-10447.
54. ↑ Mimura, J., Yamashita, K., Nakamura, K., Morita, M., Takagi, T. N., Nakao, K., Ema, M., Sogawa, K., Yasuda, M., Katsuki, M., and Fujii-Kuriyama, Y. (1997). Loss of teratogenic response to 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) in mice lacking the Ah (dioxin) receptor. Genes Cells 2, 645-654.
55. ↑ Schmidt, J. V., Su, G. H., Reddy, J. K., Simon, M. C., and Bradfield, C. A. (1996). Characterization of a murine Ahr null allele: involvement of the Ah receptor in hepatic growth and development. Proc.Natl.Acad.Sci U.S.A 93, 6731-6736.
56. ↑ Thackaberry, E. A., Gabaldon, D. M., Walker, M. K., and Smith, S. M. (2002). Aryl hydrocarbon receptor null mice develop cardiac hypertrophy and increased hypoxia-inducible factor-1alpha in the absence of cardiac hypoxia. Cardiovasc.Toxicol. 2, 263-274.
57. ↑ Zhang, N., Agbor, L. N., Scott, J. A., Zalobowski, T., Elased, K. M., Trujillo, A., Duke, M. S., Wolf, V., Walsh, M. T., Born, J. L., Felton, L. A., Wang, J., Wang, W., Kanagy, N. L., and Walker, M. K. (2010). An activated renin-angiotensin system maintains normal blood pressure in aryl hydrocarbon receptor heterozygous mice but not in null mice. Biochem.Pharmacol. 80, 197-2040.

Abnet, C.C.; Tanguay, R.L.; Heideman, W.; Peterson, R.E. 1999. Transactivation activity of human, zebrafish, and rainbow trout aryl hydrocarbon receptors expressed in COS-7 cells: Greater insight into species differences in toxic potency of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin, dibenzofuran, and biphenyl congeners. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 159, 41-51.

 

Andreasen, E.A.; Tanguay, R.L.; Peterson, R.E.; Heideman, W. 2002. Identification of a critical amino acid in the aryl hydrocarbon receptor. J. Biol. Chem. 277 (15), 13210-13218.

 

Bak, S.M.; Lida, M.; Hirano, M.; Iwata, H.; Kim, E.Y. 2013. Potencies of red seabream AHR1- and AHR2-mediated transactivation by dioxins: implications of both AHRs in dioxin toxicity. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47 (6), 2877-2885.

 

Clark, B.W.; Matson, C.W.; Jung, D.; Di Giulio, R.T. 2010. AHR2 mediates cardiac teratogenesis of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and PCB-126 in Atlantic killifish (Fundulus heteroclitus). Aquat. Toxicol. 99, 232-240.

 

Doering, J.A.; Farmahin, R.; Wiseman, S.; Beitel, S.C.; Kennedy, S.W.; Giesy, J.P.; Hecker, M. 2015. Differences in activation of aryl hydrocarbon receptors of white sturgeon relative to lake sturgeon are predicted by identities of key amino acids in the ligand binding domain. Enviro. Sci. Technol. 49, 4681-4689.

 

Doering, J.A.; Farmahin, R.; Wiseman, S.; Kennedy, S.; Giesy J.P.; Hecker, M. 2014. Functionality of aryl hydrocarbon receptors (AhR1 and AhR2) of white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) and implications for the risk assessment of dioxin-like compounds. Enviro. Sci. Technol. 48, 8219-8226.

 

Doering, J.A.; Giesy, J.P.; Wiseman, S.; Hecker, M. Predicting the sensitivity of fishes to dioxin-like compounds: possible role of the aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR) ligand binding domain. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2013, 20(3), 1219-1224.

 

Doering, J.A.; Wiseman, S; Beitel, S.C.; Giesy, J.P.; Hecker, M. 2014. Identification and expression of aryl hydrocarbon receptors (AhR1 and AhR2) provide insight in an evolutionary context regarding sensitivity of white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) to dioxin-like compounds. Aquat. Toxicol. 150, 27-35.

 

Duncan, D.M.; Burgess, E.A.; Duncan, I. 1998. Control of distal antennal identity and tarsal development in Drosophila by spineless-aristapedia, a homolog of the mammalian dioxin receptor. Genes Dev. 12, 1290-1303.

 

Eisner, B.K.; Doering, J.A.; Beitel, S.C.; Wiseman, S.; Raine, J.C.; Hecker, M. 2016. Cross-species comparison of relative potencies and relative sensitivities of fishes to dibenzo-p-dioxins, dibenzofurans, and polychlorinated biphenyls in vitro. Enviro. Toxicol. Chem. 35 (1), 173-181.

 

Emmons, R.B.; Duncan, D.; Estes, P.A.; Kiefel, P.; Mosher, J.T.; Sonnenfeld, M.; Ward, M.P.; Duncan, I.; Crews, S.T. 1999. The spineless-aristapedia and tango bHLH-PAS proteins interact to control antennal and tarsal development in Drosophila. Development. 126, 3937-3945.

 

Evans, B.R.; Karchner, S.I.; Franks, D.G.; Hahn, M.E. 2005. Duplicate aryl hydrocarbon receptor repressor genes (ahrr1 and ahrr2) in the zebrafish Danio rerio: structure, function, evolution, and AHR-dependent regulation in vivo. Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 441, 151-167.

 

Hahn, M.E. 2002. Aryl hydrocarbon receptors: diversity and evolution. Chemico-Biol. Interact. 141, 131-160.

 

Hahn, M.E.; Karchner, S.I.; Evans, B.R.; Franks, D.G.; Merson, R.R.; Lapseritis, J.M. 2006. Unexpected diversity of aryl hydrocarbon receptors in non-mammalian vertebrates: Insights from comparative genomics. J. Exp. Zool. A. Comp. Exp. Biol. 305, 693-706.

 

Hahn, M.E.; Poland, A.; Glover, E.; Stegeman, J.J. 1994. Photoaffinity labeling of the Ah receptor: phylogenetic survey of diverse vertebrate and invertebrate species. Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 310, 218-228.

 

Hansson, M.C.; Hahn, M.E. 2008. Functional properties of the four Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) aryl hydrocarbon receptor type 2 (AHR2) isoforms. Aquat. Toxicol. 86, 121-130.

 

Hansson, M.C.; Wittzell, H.; Persson, K.; von Schantz, T. 2004. Unprecedented genomic diversity of AhR1 and AhR2 genes in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.). Aquat. Toxicol. 68 (3), 219-232.

 

Karchner, S.I.; Franks, D.G.; Hahn, M.E. (2005). AHR1B, a new functional aryl hydrocarbon receptor in zebrafish: tandem arrangement of ahr1b and ahr2 genes. Biochem. J. 392 (1), 153-161.

 

Karchner, S.I.; Powell, W.H.; Hahn, M.E. 1999. Identification and functional characterization of two highly divergent aryl hydrocarbon receptors (AHR1 and AHR2) in the Teleost Fundulus heteroclitus. Evidence for a novel subfamily of ligand-binding basic helix loop helix-Per-ARNT-Sim (bHLH-PAS) factors. J. Biol. Chem. 274, 33814-33824.

 

Lahvis, G.P.; Bradfield, C.A. 1998. Ahr null alleles: distinctive or different? Biochem. Pharmacol. 56, 781-787.

 

Lavine, J.A.; Rowatt, A.J.; Klimova, T.; Whitington, A.J.; Dengler, E.; Beck, C.; Powell, W.H. 2005. Aryl hydrocarbon receptors in the frog Xenopus laevis: two AhR1 paralogs exhibit low affinity for 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD). Toxicol. Sci. 88 (1), 60-72.

 

Oka, K.; Kohno, S.; Ohta, Y.; Guillette, L.J.; Iguchi, T.; Katsu, Y. (2016). Molecular cloning and characterization of the aryl hydrocarbon receptors and aryl hydrocarbon receptor nuclear translocators in the American alligator. Gen. Comp. Endo. 238, 13-22.

 

Pongratz, I.; Mason, G.G.; Poellinger, L. Dual roles of the 90-kDa heat shock protein hsp90 in modulating functional activities of the dioxin receptor. Evidence that the dioxin receptor functionally belongs to a subclass of nuclear receptors which require hsp90 both for ligand binding activity and repression of intrinsic DNA binding activity. J. Biol. Chem. 1992, 267 (19), 13728-13734

 

Prasch, A.L.; Teraoka, H.; Carney, S.A.; Dong, W.; Hiraga, T.; Stegeman, J.J.; Heideman, W.; Peterson, R.E. 2003. Toxicol. Sci. Aryl hydrocarbon receptor 2 mediated 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin developmental toxicity in zebrafish. 76 (1), 138-150.

 

Shoots, J.; Fraccalvieri, D.; Franks, D.G.; Denison, M.S.; Hahn, M.E.; Bonati, L.; Powell, W.H. 2015. An aryl hydrocarbon receptor from the salamander Ambystoma mexicanum exhibits low sensitivity to 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin. Enviro. Sci. Technol. 49, 6993-7001.

 

Tanguay, R.L.; Abnet, C.C.; Heideman, W. Peterson, R.E. (1999). Cloning and characterization of the zebrafish (Danio rerio) aryl hydrocarbon receptor1. Biochimica et Biophysica Act 1444, 35-48.

 

Van den Berg, M.; Birnbaum, L.; Bosveld, A.T.C.; Brunstrom, B.; Cook, P.; Feeley, M.; Giesy, J.P.; Hanberg, A.; Hasegawa, R.; Kennedy, S.W.; Kubiak, T.; Larsen, J.C.; van Leeuwen, R.X.R.; Liem, A.K.D.; Nolt, C.; Peterson, R.E.; Poellinger, L.; Safe, S.; Schrenk, D.; Tillitt, D.; Tysklind, M.; Younes, M.; Waern, F.; Zacharewski, T. Toxic equivalency factors (TEFs) for PCBs, PCDDs, PECDFs for human and wildlife. Enviro. Hlth. Persp. 1998, 106, 775-792.

 

Van Tiem, L.A.; Di Giulio, R.T. 2011. AHR2 knockdown prevents PAH-mediated cardiac toxicity and XRE- and ARE-associated gene induction in zebrafish (Danio rerio). Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 254 (3), 280-287.

 

Whitlock, J.P.; Okino, S.T.; Dong, L.Q.; Ko, H.S.P.; Clarke Katzenberg, R.; Qiang, M.; Li, W. 1996. Induction of cytochrome P4501A1: a model for analyzing mammalian gene transcription. Faseb. J. 10, 809-818.

 

Wirgin, I.; Roy, N.K.; Loftus, M.; Chambers, R.C.; Franks, D.G.; Hahn, M.E. 2011. Mechanistic basis of resistance to PCBs in Atlantic tomcod from the Hudson River. Science. 331, 1322-1324.

 

Yamauchi, M.; Kim, E.Y.; Iwata, H.; Shima, Y.; Tanabe, S. Toxic effects of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) in developing red seabream (Pagrus major) embryos: an association of morphological deformities with AHR1, AHR2 and CYP1A expressions. Aquat. Toxicol. 2006, 16, 166-179.

 

Yasui, T.; Kim, E.Y.; Iawata, H.; Franks, D.G.; Karchner, S.I.; Hahn, M.E.; Tanabe, S. 2007. Functional characterization and evolutionary history of two aryl hydrocarbon receptor isoforms (AhR1 and AhR2) from avian species. Toxicol. Sci. 99 (1), 101-117.

Bonati, L.; Corrada, D.; Tagliabue, S.G.; Motta, S. (2017) Molecular modeling of the AhR structure and interactions can shed light on ligand-dependent activation and transformation mechanisms. Current Opinion in Toxicology 2: 42-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cotox.2017.01.011.

Sovadinová, I. , Bláha, L. , Janošek, J. , Hilscherová, K. , Giesy, J. P., Jones, P. D. and Holoubek, I. (2006), Cytotoxicity and aryl hydrocarbon receptor‐mediated activity of N‐heterocyclic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons: Structure‐activity relationships. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 25: 1291-1297. doi:10.1897/05-388R.1

Key Event Component

Domain of Applicability

Key Event Description

Structure and Function of ARNT

• The aryl hydrocarbon receptor nuclear translocator (ARNT) is a member of the Per-Arnt-Sim (PAS) family of proteins (Gu et al 2000).
• PAS proteins share highly conserved PAS domains (Gu et al 2000).
• PAS proteins act as transcriptional regulators in response to environmental and physiological cues (Gu et al 2000).
• ARNTs have numerous key roles in vertebrates related to responses to developmental and environmental cues.

Isoforms of ARNT:

• Over time ARNT has undergone gene duplication and diversification in vertebrates, which has resulted in three clades of ARNT, namely ARNT1, ARNT2, and ARNT3.
• Each clade can include multiple isoforms and splice variants (Hill et al 2009; Lee et al 2007; Lee et al 2011; Powel & Hahn 2000; Tanguay et al 2000).
• ARNT1s have been demonstrated to function predominantly through heterodimerization with the aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR) and hypoxia inducible factor 1 α (HIF1α) (Prasch et al 2004; 2006; Wang et al 1995).
• ARNT2s are believed to function predominantly through heterodimerization with Single Minded (SIM) (Hirose et al 1996).
• ARNT3s, which are also known as ARNT-like (ARNTL), Brain and Muscle ARNT-like-1 (BMAL1), or Morphine Preference 3 (MOP3), are believed to function predominantly through heterodimerization with Circadian Locomotor Output Cycles Kaput (CLOCK) (Gekakis et al 1998).

Roles of ARNTs in mammals:

• ARNT1 functions in normal vascular and hematopoietic development (Kozak et al 1997; Maltepe et al 1997; Abbott & Buckalew 2000).
• ARNT2 functions in development of the hypothalamus and nervous system (Hosoya et al 2001; Keith et al 2001).
• ARNT3 functions in biological rhythms (Gekakis et al 1998).

Roles of ARNTs in other taxa:

• ARNTs have been demonstrated to have roles in development of the heart, brain, liver, and possibly the peripheral nervous system in zebrafish (Danio rerio) (Hill et al 2009).
• Roles of ARNTs in other taxa have not been sufficiently investigated to date.

Interaction with AHR

• Both ARNT1s and ARNT2s are able to heterodimerize with AhR and interact with dioxin-responsive elements on the DNA in in vitro systems (Hirose et al 1996; Lee et al 2007; Lee et al 2011; Prasch et al 2004).
• Selective knockdown of ARNTs in zebrafish (Danio rerio) demonstrates that ARNT1s, but not ARNT2s, are required for activation of the AhR in vivo (Prasch et al 2004; 2006).
• In limited investigations ARNT3 has not been demonstrated to interact with the AHR either in vivo or in vitro (Jain et al 1998). 

Upon ligand binding, the aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AHR) migrates to the nucleus where it dissociates from the cytosolic complex and forms a heterodimer with AHR nuclear translocator (ARNT) (Mimura and Fujii-Kuriyama 2003). The AHR-ARNT complex then binds to a xenobiotic response element (XRE) found in the promoter of an AHR-regulated gene and recruits co-regulators such as CREB binding protein/p300, steroid receptor co-activator (SRC) 1, SRC-2, SRC-3 and nuclear receptor interacting protein 1, leading to induction or repression of gene expression (Fujii-Kuriyama and Kawajiri 2010). Expression levels of several genes, including phase I (e.g. cytochrome P450 (CYP) 1A, CYP1B, CYP2A) and phase II enzymes (e.g. uridine diphosphate glucuronosyl transferase (UDP-GT), glutathione S-transferases (GSTs)), as well as genes involved in cell proliferation (transforming growth factor-beta, interleukin-1 beta), cell cycle regulation (p27, jun-B) and apoptosis (Bax), are regulated through this mechanism (Fujii-Kuriyama and Kawajiri 2010; Giesy et al. 2006; Mimura and Fujii-Kuriyama 2003; Safe 1994).

How it is Measured or Detected

AhR/ARNT heterodimerization can be measured in several ways:

1) The active AHR complexed with ARNT can be measured using protein-DNA interaction assays. Two methods are described in detail by Perez-Romero and Imperiale (Perez-Romero and Imperiale 2007). Chromatin immunoprecipitation measures the interaction of proteins with specific genomic regions in vivo. It involves the treatment of cells with formaldehyde to crosslink neighboring protein-protein and protein-DNA molecules. Nuclear fractions are isolated, the genomic DNA is sheared, and nuclear lysates are used in immunoprecipitations with an antibody against the protein of interest. After reversal of the crosslinking, the associated DNA fragments are sequenced. Enrichment of specific DNA sequences represents regions on the genome that the protein of interest is associated with in vivo. Electrophoretic mobility shift assay (EMSA) provides a rapid method to study DNA-binding protein interactions in vitro. This relies on the fact that complexes of protein and DNA migrate through a non-denaturing polyacrylamide gel more slowly than free DNA fragments. The protein-DNA complex components are then identified with appropriate antibodies. The EMSA assay was found to be consistent with the luciferase reporter gene assay (in chicken hepatoma cells dosed with dioxin-like compounds (Heid et al. 2001).

2) Species-specific differences in dimerization and differences in dimerization between ARNT isoform and AhR isoform combinations have been assessed through luciferase reporter gene (LRG) assays utilizing COS-7 cells transfected with expression constructs of AhR and ARNT isoforms of mammals, birds, and fishes (Abnet et al 1999; Bak et al 2013; Doering et al 2014; 2015; Hansson & Hahn 2008; Hirose et al 1996; Karchner et al 1999; Lee et al 2007; Lee et al 2011; Prasch et al 2004; Wirgin et al 2011). However, this method is indirect as it also includes binding of a ligand to the AhR, and interaction of the AhR/ARNT heterodimer with dioxin-responsive elements on the DNA.

References

1. Fujii-Kuriyama, Y., and Kawajiri, K. (2010). Molecular mechanisms of the physiological functions of the aryl hydrocarbon (dioxin) receptor, a multifunctional regulator that senses and responds to environmental stimuli. Proc. Jpn. Acad. Ser. B Phys. Biol. Sci. 86(1), 40-53.

2. Giesy, J. P., Kannan, K., Blankenship, A. L., Jones, P. D., and Newsted, J. L. (2006). Toxicology of PCBs and related compounds. In Endocrine Disruption Biological Bases for Health Effects in Wildlife and Humans (D.O.Norris and J.A.Carr, Eds.), pp. 245-331. Oxford University Press, New York.

3. Hahn, M. E., Karchner, S. I., Evans, B. R., Franks, D. G., Merson, R. R., and Lapseritis, J. M. (2006). Unexpected diversity of aryl hydrocarbon receptors in non-mammalian vertebrates: insights from comparative genomics. J. Exp. Zool. A Comp Exp. Biol. 305(9), 693-706.

4. Heid, S. E., Walker, M. K., and Swanson, H. I. (2001). Correlation of cardiotoxicity mediated by halogenated aromatic hydrocarbons to aryl hydrocarbon receptor activation. Toxicol. Sci 61(1), 187-196.

5. Mimura, J., and Fujii-Kuriyama, Y. (2003). Functional role of AhR in the expression of toxic effects by TCDD. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta - General Subjects 1619(3), 263-268.

6. Perez-Romero, P., and Imperiale, M. J. (2007). Assaying protein-DNA interactions in vivo and in vitro using chromatin immunoprecipitation and electrophoretic mobility shift assays. Methods Mol. Med. 131, 123-139.

7. Prasch, A. L., Tanguay, R. L., Mehta, V., Heideman, W., and Peterson, R. E. (2006). Identification of zebrafish ARNT1 homologs: 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin toxicity in the developing zebrafish requires ARNT1. Mol. Pharmacol. 69(3), 776-787.

8. Safe, S. (1994). Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs): Environmental impact, biochemical and toxic responses, and implications for risk assessment. Critical Reviews in Toxicology 24(2), 87-149.

Abnet, C.C.; Tanguay, R.L.; Heideman, W.; Peterson, R.E. 1999. Transactivation activity of human, zebrafish, and rainbow trout aryl hydrocarbon receptors expressed in COS-7 cells: Greater insight into species differences in toxic potency of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin, dibenzofuran, and biphenyl congeners. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 159, 41-51.

 

Andreasen, E.A.; Hahn, M.E.; Heideman, W.; Peterson, R.E.; Tanguay, R.L. 2002. The zebrafish (Danio rerio) aryl hydrocarbon receptor type 1 is a novel vertebrate receptor. Molec. Pharmacol. 62, 234-249.

 

Andreasen, E.A.; Tanguay, R.L.; Peterson, R.E.; Heideman, W. 2002. Identification of a critical amino acid in the aryl hydrocarbon receptor. J. Biol. Chem. 277 (15), 13210-13218.

 

Antkiewicz, D.S.; Burns, C.G.; Carney, S.A.; Peterson, R.E.; Heideman, W. 2005. Heart malformation is an early response to TCDD in embryonic zebrafish. Toxicol. Sci. 84, 368-377.

 

Bak, S.M.; Lida, M.; Hirano, M.; Iwata, H.; Kim, E.Y. 2013. Potencies of red seabream AHR1- and AHR2-mediated transactivation by dioxins: implications of both AHRs in dioxin toxicity. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47 (6), 2877-2885.

 

Billiard, S.M.; Hahn, M.E.; Franks, D.G.; Peterson, R.E.; Bols, N.C.; Hodson, P.V. (2002). Binding of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) to teleost aryl hydrocarbon receptors (AHRs). Comp. Biochem. Physiol. B. Biochem. Mol. Biol. 133 (1), 55-68.

 

Chen, G.; Bunce, N.J. (2003). Polybrominated diphenyl ethers as Ah receptor agonists and antagonists. Toxicol. Sci. 76 (2), 310-320.

 

Denison, M.S.; Heath-Pagliuso, S. The Ah receptor: a regulator of the biochemical and toxicological actions of structurally diverse chemicals. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 1998, 61 (5), 557-568.

 

Doering, J.A.; Tang, S.; Peng, H.; Eisner, B.K.; Sun, J.; Giesy, J.P.; Wiseman, S.; Hecker, M. 2016. High conservation in transcriptomic and proteomic response of white sturgeon to equipotent concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD, PCB 77, and benzo[a]pyrene. Enviro. Sci. Technol. 50 (9), 4826-4835.

 

Doering, J.A.; Farmahin, R.; Wiseman, S.; Kennedy, S.; Giesy J.P.; Hecker, M. 2014. Functionality of aryl hydrocarbon receptors (AhR1 and AhR2) of white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) and implications for the risk assessment of dioxin-like compounds. Enviro. Sci. Technol. 48, 8219-8226.

 

Doering, J.A.; Farmahin, R.; Wiseman, S.; Beitel, S.C.; Kennedy, S.W.; Giesy, J.P.; Hecker, M. 2015. Differences in activation of aryl hydrocarbon receptors of white sturgeon relative to lake sturgeon are predicted by identities of key amino acids in the ligand binding domain. Enviro. Sci. Technol. 49, 4681-4689.

 

Doering, J.A.; Wiseman, S; Beitel, S.C.; Giesy, J.P.; Hecker, M. 2014b. Identification and expression of aryl hydrocarbon receptors (AhR1 and AhR2) provide insight in an evolutionary context regarding sensitivity of white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) to dioxin-like compounds. Aquat. Toxicol. 150, 27-35.

 

Drutel, G.; Kathmann, M.; Heron, A.; Schwartz, J.; Arrang, J. (1996). Cloning and selective expression in brain and kidney of ARNT2 homologous to the Ah receptor nuclear translocator (ARNT). Biochem. Biophys. Res. Comm. 225 (2), 333-339.

 

Farmahin, R.; Crump, D.; O’Brien, J.M.; Jones, S.P.; Kennedy, S.W. (2016). Time-dependent transcriptomic and biochemical responses of 6-formylindolo[3,2-b]carbazole (FICZ) and 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) are explained by AHR activation time. Biochem. Pharmacol. 115 (1), 134-143.

 

Farmahin, R.; Manning, G.E.; Crump, D.; Wu, D.; Mundy, L.J.; Jones, S.P.; Hahn, M.E.; Karchner, S.I.; Giesy, J.P.; Bursian, S.J.; Zwiernik, M.J.; Fredricks, T.B.; Kennedy, S.W. 2013. Amino acid sequence of the ligand-binding domain of the aryl hydrocarbon receptor 1 predicts sensitivity of wild birds to effects of dioxin-like compounds. Toxicol. Sci. 131 (1), 139-152.

 

Farmahin, R.; Wu, D.; Crump, D.; Herve, J.C.; Jones, S.P.; Hahn, M.E.; Karchner, S.I.; Giesy, J.P.; Bursian, S.J.; Zwiernik, M.J.; Kennedy, S.W. 2012. Sequence and in vitro function of chicken, ring-necked pheasant, and Japanese quail AHR1 predict in vivo sensitivity to dioxins. Enviro. Sci. Toxicol. 46 (5), 2967-2975.

 

Gekakis, N., Staknis, D., Nguyen, H.B., Davis, F.C., Wilsbacher, L.D., King, D.P., Takahashi, J.S., Weitz, C.J. 1998. Role of the CLOCK protein in the mammalian circadian mechanism. Science. 280, 1564-1569.

 

Gu, Y.; Hogenesch, J.B.; Bradfield, C.A. 2000. The PAS superfamily: Sensors of environmental and developmental signals. Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 40, 519-561.

 

Hansson, M.C.; Hahn, M.E. 2008. Functional properties of the four Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) aryl hydrocarbon receptor type 2 (AHR2) isoforms. Aquat. Toxicol. 86, 121-130.

 

Hill, A.J.; King-Heiden, T.C.; Heideman, W.; Peterson, R.E. (2009). Potential roles of Arnt2 in zebrafish larval development. Zebrafish. 6 (1), 79-91.

 

Hirose, K., Morita, M., Ema, M., Mimura, J., Hamada, H., Fujii, H., Saijo, Y., Gotoh, O., Sogawa, K., Fujii-Kuriyama, Y. 1996. cDNA cloning and tissue-specific expression of a novel basic helix-loop-helix/ PAS factor (Arnt2) with close sequence similarity to the aryl hydrocarbon nuclear translocator (Arnt). Mol. Cell. Biol. 16, 1706-1713.

 

Hoffman, E.C., Reyes, H., Chu, F.F., Sander, F., Conley, L.H., Brooks, B.A., Hankinson, O. 1991. Cloning of a factor required for activity of the Ah (dioxin) receptor. Science. 252, 954-958.

 

Karchner, S.I.; Powell, W.H.; Hahn, M.E. 1999. Identification and functional characterization of two highly divergent aryl hydrocarbon receptors (AHR1 and AHR2) in the Teleost Fundulus heteroclitus. Evidence for a novel subfamily of ligand-binding basic helix loop helix-Per-ARNT-Sim (bHLH-PAS) factors. J. Biol. Chem. 274, 33814-33824.

 

Lavine, J.A.; Rowatt, A.J.; Klimova, T.; Whitington, A.J.; Dengler, E.; Beck, C.; Powell, W.H. 2005. Aryl hydrocarbon receptors in the frog Xenopus laevis: two AhR1 paralogs exhibit low affinity for 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD). Toxicol. Sci. 88 (1), 60-72.

 

Lee, J., Kim, E., Iwata, H., Tanabe, S. 2007. Molecular characterization and tissue distribution of aryl hydrocarbon receptor nuclear translocator isoforms, ARNT1 and ARNT2, and identification of novel splice variants in common cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo). Comp. Biochem. Physiol. C. 145, 379-393.

 

Lee, J., Kim, E., Iwabuchi, H., Iwata, H. (2011). Molecular and functional characterization of aryl hydrocarbon receptor nuclear translocator 1 (ARNT1) and ARNT2 in chicken (Gallus gallus). Comp. Biochem. Physiol. C. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 153 (3), 269-279.

 

Mandl, M.; Depping, R. (2014). Hypoxia-inducible aryl hydrocarbon receptor nuclear translocator (ARNT) (HIF-1B): Is it a rare exception? Mol. Med. 20 (1), 215-220.

 

Murk, A.J.; Legler, J.; Denison, M.S.; Giesy, J.P.; Van De Guchte, C.; Brouwer, A. (1996). Chemical-activated luciferase gene expression (CALUX): A novel in vitro bioassay for Ah receptor active compounds in sediments and pore water. Toxicol. Sci. 33 (1), 149-160.

 

Oka, K.; Kohno, S.; Ohta, Y.; Guillette, L.J.; Iguchi, T.; Katsu, Y. (2016). Molecular cloning and characterization of the aryl hydrocarbon receptors and aryl hydrocarbon receptor nuclear translocators in the American alligator. Gen. Comp. Endo. 238, 13-22.

 

Powell, W.H.; Hahn, M.E. (2002). Identification and functional characterization of hypoxia-inducible factor 2a from the estuarine teleost, Fundulus heteroclitus: Interaction of HIF-2a with two ARNT2 splice variants. J. Exp. Zoo. A. 294 (1), 17-29.

 

Prasch, A.L.; Tanguay, R.L.; Mehta, V.; Heideman, W.; Peterson, R.E. (2006). Identification of zebrafish ARNT1 homologs: 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin toxicity in the developing zebrafish requires ARNT1. Mol. Pharmacol. 69 (3), 776-787.

 

Prasch, A.L.; Teraoka, H.; Carney, S.A.; Dong, W.; Hiraga, T.; Stegeman, J.J.; Heideman, W.; Peterson, R.E. 2003. Toxicol. Sci. Aryl hydrocarbon receptor 2 mediated 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin developmental toxicity in zebrafish. 76 (1), 138-150.

 

Shoots, J.; Fraccalvieri, D.; Franks, D.G.; Denison, M.S.; Hahn, M.E.; Bonati, L.; Powell, W.H. 2015. An aryl hydrocarbon receptor from the salamander Ambystoma mexicanum exhibits low sensitivity to 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin. Enviro. Sci. Technol. 49, 6993-7001.

 

Tanguay, R.L.; Abnett, C.C.; Heideman, W.; Peterson, R.E. 1999. Cloning and characterization of the zebrafish (Danio rerio) aryl hydrocarbon receptor. Biochem. Biophys. Acta. 1444, 35-48.

 

Tanguay, R.L.; Andreasen, E.; Heideman, W.; Peterson, R.E. (2000). Identification and expression of alternatively spliced aryl hydrocarbon nuclear translocator 2 (ARNT2) cDNAs from zebrafish with distinct functions. BBA. 1494 (1-2), 117-128.

 

Van den Berg, M.; Birnbaum, L.; Bosveld, A.T.C.; Brunstrom, B.; Cook, P.; Feeley, M.; Giesy, J.P.; Hanberg, A.; Hasegawa, R.; Kennedy, S.W.; Kubiak, T.; Larsen, J.C.; van Leeuwen, R.X.R.; Liem, A.K.D.; Nolt, C.; Peterson, R.E.; Poellinger, L.; Safe, S.; Schrenk, D.; Tillitt, D.; Tysklind, M.; Younes, M.; Waern, F.; Zacharewski, T. Toxic equivalency factors (TEFs) for PCBs, PCDDs, PECDFs for human and wildlife. Enviro. Hlth. Persp. 1998, 106, 775-792.

 

Van den Berg, M.; Birnbaum, L.S.; Dension, M.; De Vito, M.; Farland, W.; Feeley, M.; Fiedler, H.; Hakansson, H.; Hanberg, A.; Haws, L.; Rose, M.; Safe, S.; Schrenk, D.; Tohyama, C.; Tritscher, A.; Tuomisto, J.; Tysklind, M.; Walker, N.; Peterson, R.E. 2006. The 2005 World Health Organization reevaluation of human and mammalian toxic equivalency factors for dioxins and dioxin-like compounds. Toxicol. Sci. 93 (2), 223-241.

 

Waller, C.L.; McKinney, J.D. (1992). Comparative molecular field analysis of polyhalogenated dibenzo-p-dioixns, dibenzofurans, and biphenyls. J. Med. Chem. 35, 3660-2666.

 

Waller, C.; McKinney, J. (1995). Three-dimensional quantitative structure-activity relationships of dioxins and dioxin-like compounds: model validation and Ah receptor characterization. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 8, 847-858.

 

Wang, G.L., Jiang, B.H., Rue, E.A., Semenza, G.L. 1995. Hypoxia-inducible factor 1 is a basic-helix-loop-helix-PAS heterodimer regulated by cellular O2 tension. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 92, 5510-5514.

 

Whitlock, J.P.; Okino, S.T.; Dong, L.Q.; Ko, H.S.P.; Clarke Katzenberg, R.; Qiang, M.; Li, W. 1996. Induction of cytochrome P4501A1: a model for analyzing mammalian gene transcription. Faseb. J. 10, 809-818.

 

Whyte, J.J.; Jung, R.E.; Schmitt, C.J.; Tillitt, D.E. (2008). Ethoxyresorufin-O-deethylase (EROD) activity in fish as a biomarker of chemical exposure. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 30 (4), 347-570.

 

Wirgin, I.; Roy, N.K.; Loftus, M.; Chambers, R.C.; Franks, D.G.; Hahn, M.E. 2011. Mechanistic basis of resistance to PCBs in Atlantic tomcod from the Hudson River. Science. 331, 1322-1324.

Jain, S.; Maltepe, E.; Lu, M.M.; Simon, C.; Bradfield, C.A. 1998. Expression of ARNT, ARNT2, HIF1 alpha, HIF2 alpha, and Ah receptor mRNAs in the developing mouse. Mech. Dev. 73, 117-123.

Key Event Component

Domain of Applicability

Key Event Description

The aryl hydrocarbon receptor nuclear translocator (ARNT; a.k.a HIF-1ß) serves as a dimerization partner for hypoxia inducible factor 1 alpha (HIF-1α), and this complex is involved in mediating physiological responses to hypoxia. HIF-1α abundance is negatively regulated by a subfamily of dioxygenases referred to as prolyl hydroxylase domain-containing proteins, which use oxygen as a substrate to hydroxylate HIF-1α subunits and hence tag them for rapid degradation. Under conditions of hypoxia, HIF-1α subunits accumulate due to reduced hydroxylation efficiency and form heterodimers (HIF-1) with ARNT.  Dimerization between ARNT and HIF-1α forms a transcription factor complex (HIF-1) that binds to hypoxia response enhancer sequences on DNA to activate the expression of genes involved in angiogenesis, glucose metabolism, cell survival, and erythropoietin synthesis, among others^[8-11].

How it is Measured or Detected

Methods that have been previously reviewed and approved by a recognized authority should be included in the Overview section above. All other methods, including those well established in the published literature, should be described here. Consider the following criteria when describing each method: 1. Is the assay fit for purpose? 2. Is the assay directly or indirectly (i.e. a surrogate) related to a key event relevant to the final adverse effect in question? 3. Is the assay repeatable? 4. Is the assay reproducible?

The active HIF1- α complexed with ARNT can be measured using protein-DNA interaction assays. Two methods are described in detail by Perez-Romero and Imperiale (Perez-Romero and Imperiale 2007). Chromatin immunoprecipitation measures the interaction of proteins with specific genomic regions in vivo. It involves the treatment of cells with formaldehyde to crosslink neighboring protein-protein and protein-DNA molecules. Nuclear fractions are isolated, the genomic DNA is sheared, and nuclear lysates are used in immunoprecipitations with an antibody against the protein of interest. After reversal of the crosslinking, the associated DNA fragments are sequenced. Enrichment of specific DNA sequences represents regions on the genome that the protein of interest is associated with in vivo. Electrophoretic mobility shift assay (EMSA) provides a rapid method to study DNA-binding protein interactions in vitro. This relies on the fact that complexes of protein and DNA migrate through a non-denaturing polyacrylamide gel more slowly than free DNA fragments.

References

1. Forsythe, J. A., Jiang, B. H., Iyer, N. V., Agani, F., Leung, S. W., Koos, R. D., and Semenza, G. L. (1996). Activation of vascular endothelial growth factor gene transcription by hypoxia-inducible factor 1. Mol. Cell Biol. 16(9), 4604-4613.

2. Goldberg, M. A., and Schneider, T. J. (1994). Similarities between the oxygen-sensing mechanisms regulating the expression of vascular endothelial growth factor and erythropoietin. J. Biol. Chem. 269(6), 4355-4359.

3. Heid, S. E., Walker, M. K., and Swanson, H. I. (2001). Correlation of cardiotoxicity mediated by halogenated aromatic hydrocarbons to aryl hydrocarbon receptor activation. Toxicol. Sci 61(1), 187-196.

4. Jiang, B. H., Rue, E., Wang, G. L., Roe, R., and Semenza, G. L. (1996). Dimerization, DNA binding, and transactivation properties of hypoxia-inducible factor 1. J. Biol. Chem. 271(30), 17771-17778.

5. Maxwell, P. H., Dachs, G. U., Gleadle, J. M., Nicholls, L. G., Harris, A. L., Stratford, I. J., Hankinson, O., Pugh, C. W., and Ratcliffe, P. J. (1997). Hypoxia-inducible factor-1 modulates gene expression in solid tumors and influences both angiogenesis and tumor growth. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci U. S. A 94(15), 8104-8109.

6. Shweiki, D., Itin, A., Soffer, D., and Keshet, E. (1992). Vascular endothelial growth factor induced by hypoxia may mediate hypoxia-initiated angiogenesis. Nature 359(6398), 843-845.

7. Walker, M. K., Pollenz, R. S., and Smith, S. M. (1997). Expression of the aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR) and AhR nuclear translocator during chick cardiogenesis is consistent with 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin-induced heart defects. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 143(2), 407-419.

8. Wikenheiser, J., Wolfram, J. A., Gargesha, M., Yang, K., Karunamuni, G., Wilson, D. L., Semenza, G. L., Agani, F., Fisher, S. A., Ward, N., and Watanabe, M. (2009). Altered hypoxia-inducible factor-1 alpha expression levels correlate with coronary vessel anomalies. Dev. Dyn. 238(10), 2688-2700.

9. Livingston DM, Shivdasani R. (2001). Toward mechanism-based cancer care. JAMA 285:588–593.

10. Semenza GL. (2003). Targeting HIF-1 for cancer therapy. Nat Rev Cancer 3: 721–732.

11. Dery M-A C, Michaud MD, Richard DE. (2005). Hypoxia-inducible factor 1: regulation by hypoxic and non-hypoxic activators. Int J Biochem Cell Biol 37: 535–540.

12. Jain S, Maltepe E, Lu MM, Simon C, and Bradfield CA (1998) Expression of ARNT, ARNT2, HIF1 alpha, HIF2 alpha and Ah receptor mRNAs in the developing mouse. Mech Dev 73:117–123.

13. Tipoe, G. L., and Fung, M. L. (2003). Expression of HIF-1alpha, VEGF and VEGF receptors in the carotid body of chronically hypoxic rat. Respir. Physiol Neurobiol. 138(2-3), 143-154.

14. Heise, K., Estevez, M.S., Puntarulo, S., Galleano, M., Nikinmaa, M., Portner, H.O., and Abele, D. (2007) Effects of seasonal and latitudinal cold on oxidative stress parameters and activation of hypoxia inducible factor (HIF-1) in zoarcid fish. Biochem. Syst. Environ. Physiol. 177: 765-77

15. Rissanen, E., Tranberg, H.K., Sollid, J., Nilsson, G.E., and Nikinmaa, M. (2006) Temperature regulates hypoxia-inducible factor-1 (HIF-1) in a poikilothermic vertebrate, crucian carp (Carassius carassius) J. Exp. Biol. 209 (6): 994-1003

16. Greenald, D., Jeyakani, J., Pelster, B., Sealy, I., Mathavan, S., and van Eeden, F.J. (2015) Genome-wide mapping of Hif-1 alpha binding sites in zebrafish. BMC Genomics. 16: 923

17. M.A. Schults; L. Timmermans; R.W. Godschalk; J. Theys; B.G. Wouters; F.J. van Schooten and R.K. Chiu (2010) Diminished Carcinogen Detoxification Is a Novel Mechanism for Hypoxia-inducible Factor 1-mediated Genetic Instability. The Journal of Biological Chemistry 285:14558-14564. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M109.076323.

 

Key Event Component

Domain of Applicability

Key Event Description

Vascular endothelial growth factors (VEGFs) are a family of homodimeric glycoproteins that stimulate vasculogenesis and angiogenesis in various tissues^[1].  They play vital roles in fetal development and increased oxygen supply in response to tissue injury and hypoxic stress^[1,2].  VEGFs signal through cell surface receptor tyrosine kinases: VEGFR-1, VEGFR-2 and VEGFR-3 (Figure 1), which play critical roles in haematopoietic cell development, vascular endothelial cell development and lymphatic endothelial cell development, respectively^[3].  The mammalian VEGF-A family has been extensively studied, and includes multiple splice variants, with VEGF₁₆₅ being the most abundantly expressed^[1].   

Figure 1: VEGF family members and their respective receptors (Häggström, Mikael (2014). "Medical gallery of Mikael Häggström 2014". WikiJournal of Medicine 1 (2). DOI:10.15347/wjm/2014.008. ISSN 2002-4436. Public Domain. Retrieved 24/05/2017)
 

How it is Measured or Detected

Methods that have been previously reviewed and approved by a recognized authority should be included in the Overview section above. All other methods, including those well established in the published literature, should be described here. Consider the following criteria when describing each method: 1. Is the assay fit for purpose? 2. Is the assay directly or indirectly (i.e. a surrogate) related to a key event relevant to the final adverse effect in question? 3. Is the assay repeatable? 4. Is the assay reproducible?

VEGF protein can be measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (Ivnitski-Steele et al. (2005), immunihistochemistry or western blot (Li et al. 2016).

VEGF gene expression, which is directly correlated with protein levels, can be measured by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (QPCR) (Medford et al. 2009).

References

1. Cecilia Y. Cheung (1997) Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor: Possible Role in Fetal Development and Placental Function. J Soc Gynecol Invest. 4: 169-77

2. Ahluwalia, A., and Tarnawski, A. S. (2012). Critical role of hypoxia sensor--HIF-1alpha in VEGF gene activation. Implications for angiogenesis and tissue injury healing. Curr. Med. Chem. 19(1), 90-97.

3. Holmes, K., Roberts, O. L., Thomas, A. M., and Cross, M. J. (2007). Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2: structure, function, intracellular signalling and therapeutic inhibition. Cell Signal. 19(10), 2003-2012.

4. Ivnitski-Steele, I. D., Friggens, M., Chavez, M., and Walker, M. K. (2005). 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) inhibition of coronary vasculogenesis is mediated, in part, by reduced responsiveness to endogenous angiogenic stimuli, including vascular endothelial growth factor A (VEGF-A). Birth Defects Res. A Clin Mol. Teratol. 73(6), 440-446.

5. Zhu, D., Fang Y., Gao,  K., Shen, J., Zhong, T.P., and Li,  F. (2017) Vegfa Impacts Early Myocardium Development in Zebrafish. Int J Mol Sci. 18(2): 444.

6. Eichmann, A., Marcelle, C., Breant, C., and Le Douarin, N.M. (1996). Molecular cloning of Quek 1 and 2, two quail vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptor-like molecules. Gene 174, 3–8.

7. Masabumi Shibuya (2002) Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Receptor Family Genes: When Did the Three Genes Phylogenetically Segregate? Biol. Chem., 383: 1573 – 1579.

8. Li, X.; Liu, X.; Guo, H.; Zhao, Z.; Li, Y.S. and Chen, G. (2016) The significance of the increased expression of phosphorylated MeCP2 in the membranes from patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy. Scientific Reports, volume 6, Article number: 32850. 10.1038/srep32850

9. Medford, A. R., Douglas, S. K., Godinho, S. I., Uppington, K. M., Armstrong, L., Gillespie, K. M., van Zyl, B., Tetley, T.D., Ibrahim, N.B.N. and Millar, A. B. (2009). Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) isoform expression and activity in human and murine lung injury. Respiratory Research, 10(1), 27. http://doi.org/10.1186/1465-9921-10-27

 

Key Event Component

Domain of Applicability

Key Event Description

In embryological terms the angiogenic cycle entails a stepwise progression of de novo blood vessel morphogenesis (vasculogenesis), maturation and expansion (angiogenesis), and remodeling [Hanahan, 1997; Chung and Ferrara 2011; Coultas et al. 2005]. These events commence as angioblasts migrate, proliferate, and assemble into a tubular network. With maturation, the endothelial tubules co-opt local stromal cells as pericytes and smooth muscle. Local signals acting on receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs), G-protein coupled receptors (GPCRs), and glycosyl phosphatidyl-inositol (GPI)-anchored receptors, and later vascular flow-mediated signals. The process of endothelial assembly into a tubular network may be disrupted by environmental agents [Sarkanen et al. 2010; Bondesson et al. 2016; Knudsen et al. 2016; Nguyen et al. 2016; Tal et al. 2016].

How it is Measured or Detected

Endothelial tubule formation (tubulogenesis) can be monitored both qualitatively and quantitatively in vitro using different human cell-based angiogenesis assays that score endothelial cell migration and the degree of tubular network formation, including cell counts, tubule counts, tubule length, tubule area, tubule intensity, and node counts [Muller et al. 2002; Masckauchan et al. 2005; Sarkanen et al. 2010; Knudsen et al. 2016; Nguyen et al. 2016]. Standard practice for reproducible in vitro tubule formation uses endothelial cells co-cultured with stromal cells [Bishop et al. 1999]. Cell types commonly employed are human umbilical endothelial cells (HUVECs) or more recently induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) derived to endothelial cells through various differentiation and purification protocols. The assay is run in agonist or antagonist modes to detect chemical enhancement or suppression of tubulogenesis. Synthetic hydrogels are shown to promote robust in vitro network formation by HUVEC or iPSC-ECs as well as their utilization to detect putative vascular disruptive compounds [Nguyen et al. 2016]. Endothelial networks formed on synthetic hydrogels showed superior sensitivity and reproducibility when compared to endothelial networks formed on Matrigel.

References

Bishop ET, Bell GT, Bloor S, Broom IJ, Hendry NFK and Wheatley DN. An in vitro model of angiogenesis: Basic features. Angiogenesis. 1999 3(4): 335-344.

Chung AS, Ferrara N. Developmental and pathological angiogenesis. Annual review of cell and developmental biology. 2011;27:563-84. PubMed PMID: 21756109.

Coultas L, Chawengsaksophak K, Rossant J. Endothelial cells and VEGF in vascular development. Nature. 2005 Dec 15;438(7070):937-45. PubMed PMID: 16355211.

Hanahan D. Signaling vascular morphogenesis and maintenance. Science. 1997 Jul 4;277(5322):48-50. PubMed PMID: 9229772.

Knudsen TB, Kleinstreuer NC. Disruption of embryonic vascular development in predictive toxicology. Birth defects research Part C, Embryo today : reviews. 2011;93(4):312-23.

Knudsen TB, Tomela T, Sarkanen R, Spencer RS, Baker NC, Franzosa J, Tal T, Kleinstreuer NC, Cai B, Berg EL and Heinonen. ToxCast Model-Based Prediction of Human Vascular Disruption: Statistical Correlation to Endothelial Tubulogenesis Assays and Computer Simulation with Agent-Based Models. 2016 (in preparation).

Masckauchan TN, Shawber CJ, Funahashi Y, Li CM, Kitajewski J. Wnt/beta-catenin signaling induces proliferation, survival and interleukin-8 in human endothelial cells. Angiogenesis. 2005;8(1):43-51. PubMed PMID: 16132617.

McCollum CW, Vancells JC, Hans C, Vazquez-Chantada M, Kleinstreuer N, Tal T, Knudsen T, Shah SS, Merchant FA, Finnell RH, Gustafsson JA, Cabrera R and Bondesson M. Identification of vascular disruptor compounds by a tiered analysis in zebrafish embryos and mouse embryonic endothelial cells. 2016 (in preparation).

Muller T, Bain G, Wang X, Papkoff J. Regulation of epithelial cell migration and tumor formation by beta-catenin signaling. Experimental cell research. 2002 Oct 15;280(1):119-33. PubMed PMID: 12372345.

Nguyen EH, Daly WT, Le NNT, Belair DG, Schwartz MP, Lebakken CS, Ananiev GE, Saghiri A, Knudsen TB, Sheibani N and Murphy WL. Identification of a synthetic alternative to matrigel for the screening of anti-angiogenic compounds. 2016 (in preparation).

Tal T, Kilty C, Smith A, LaLone C, Kennedy B, Tennant A, McCollum C, Bondesson M, Knudsen T, Padilla S and Kleinstreuer N. Screening for chemical vascular disruptors in zebrafish to evaluate a predictive model for developmental vascular toxicity. Reprod Toxicol (submitted).

Vargesson N. Vascularization of the developing chick limb bud: role of the TGFβ signalling pathway. J Anat. 2016 Jan, 202(1): 93-103. PMCID: PMC1571066.

 

Key Event Component

Domain of Applicability

Key Event Description

This key event applies to the disruption of cardiogenesis early enough in embryogenesis to result in gross morphological alterations leading to reduced cardiac function.

How it is Measured or Detected

Altered cardiovascular development/function can be measured in numerous ways:

1) As blood flow in the mesencephalic vein by use of time-lapse recording using a digital video camera (Teraoka et al 2008; 2014). Blood flow is measured as the number of red blood cells passing the mesencephalic vein per second (Teraoka et al 2008; 2014). This method is described in detail by Teraoka et al (2002). However, some studies have assessed blood flow through visualized scoring techniques by use of a microscope as (1) same rate as control, (2) slower rate than control, or (3) no flow (Henry et al 1997).

2) As heart area, pericardial edema area, or yolk sac edema area quantified with area analysis by use of a microscope linked digital camera and conventional image software (Dong et al 2010; Teraoka et al 2008; 2014; Yamauchi et al 2006). Images at the same magnification are used to obtain the area measured as number of pixels (Teraoka et al 2008; 2014). This method can use either live individuals or histologic samples. This method is described in detail by Teraoka et al (2003).

3) As basic physical measurements such as heart weight, heart aspect ratio (horizontal length versus vertical length), heart weight to body weight ratio (Fujisawa et al 2014).

4) As incidence of malformation measured as percent occurrence among individuals (Buckler et al 2015; Dong et al 2010; Park et al 2014; Yamauchi et al 2006).This method is described in detail by Dong et al (2010).

5) As heartbeat rate measured by direct observation by use of a microscope (Park et al 2014). This method is described in detail by Park et al (2014).

References

1. Carro, T., Dean, K., and Ottinger, M. A. (2013a). Effects of an environmentally relevant polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) mixture on embryonic survival and cardiac development in the domestic chicken. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 23(6), 1325-1331.

2. Carro, T., Taneyhill, L. A., and Ottinger, M. A. (2013b). The effects of an environmentally relevant 58 congener polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) mixture on cardiac development in the chick embryo. Environ. Toxicol. Chem.

3. DeWitt, J. C., Millsap, D. S., Yeager, R. L., Heise, S. S., Sparks, D. W., and Henshel, D. S. (2006). External heart deformities in passerine birds exposed to environmental mixtures of polychlorinated biphenyls during development. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 25(2), 541-551.

4. Heid, S. E., Walker, M. K., and Swanson, H. I. (2001). Correlation of cardiotoxicity mediated by halogenated aromatic hydrocarbons to aryl hydrocarbon receptor activation. Toxicol. Sci 61(1), 187-196.

5. Walker, M. K., and Catron, T. F. (2000). Characterization of cardiotoxicity induced by 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and related chemicals during early chick embryo development. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 167(3), 210-221.

6. Walker, M. K., Pollenz, R. S., and Smith, S. M. (1997). Expression of the aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR) and AhR nuclear translocator during chick cardiogenesis is consistent with 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin-induced heart defects. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 143(2), 407-419.

7. Kopf, P. G., and Walker, M. K. (2009). Overview of developmental heart defects by dioxins, PCBs, and pesticides. J. Environ. Sci. Health C. Environ. Carcinog. Ecotoxicol. Rev. 27(4), 276-285.

Bishopric, N.H. (2005). Evolution of the heart from bacteria to man. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1047, 13-29.

 

Buckler J.; Candrl, J.S.; McKee, M.J.; Papoulias, D.M.; Tillitt, D.E.; Galat, D.L. Sensitivity of shovelnose sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus platorynchus) and pallid sturgeon (S. albus) early life stages to PCB-126 and 2,3,7,8-TCDD exposure. Enviro. Toxicol. Chem. 2015, 34(6), 1417-1424.

 

Carney, S.A.; Prasch, A.L.; Heideman, W.; Peterson, R.E. 2006. Understanding dioxin developmental toxicity using the zebrafish model. Birth Defects Research. A. 76, 7-18.

 

Cohen-Barnhouse, A.M.; Zwiernik, M.J.; Link, J.E.; Fitzgerald, S.D.; Kennedy, S.W.; Herve, J.C.; Giesy, J.P.; Wiseman, S.; Yang, Y.; Jones, P.D.; Yi, W.; Collins, B.; Newsted, J.L.; Kay, D.; Bursian, S.J. 2011. Sensitivity of Japanese quail (Coturnix japonica), common pheasant (Phasianus colchicus), and white leghorn chicken (Gallus gallus domesticus) embryos to in ovo exposure to TCDD, PeCDF, and TCDF. Toxicol. Sci. 119, 93-102.

 

Elonen, G.E.; Spehar, R.L.; Holcombe, G.W.; Johnson, R.D.; Fernandez, J.D.; Erickson, R.J.; Tietge, J.E.; Cook, P.M. Comparative toxicity of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin to seven freshwater fish species during early life-stage development. Enviro. Toxico. Chem. 1998, 17, 472-483.

 

Goldstone, H.M.H.; Stegeman, J.J. (2008). Molecular mechanisms of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin cardiovascular embryotoxicity. Drug. Metab. Rev. 38, 261-289.

 

Heid, S.E.; Walker, M.K.; Swanson, H.I. (2001). Correlation of cardiotoxicity mediated by halogenated aromatic hydrocarbons to aryl hydrocarbon receptor activation. Toxicol. Sci. 61 (1), 187-196.

 

Huang, L.; Wang, C.; Zhang, Y.; Li, J.; Zhong, Y.; Zhou, Y.; Chen, Y.; Zuo, Z. (2012). Benzo[a]pyrene exposure influences the cardiac development and the expression of cardiovascular relative genes in zebrafish (Daniorerio) embryos. Chemosphere. 87 (4), 369-375.

 

Johnson, R.D.; Tietge, J.E.; Jensen, K.M.; Fernandez, J.D.; Linnum, A.L.; Lothenbach, D.B.; Holcombe, G.W.; Cook, P.M.; Christ, S.A.; Lattier, D.L.; Gordon, D.A. Toxicity of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin to early life stage brooke trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) following parental dietary exposure. Enviro. Toxicol. Chem. 1998, 17 (12), 2408-2421.

 

Kardong, K.V. (2006). Vertebrates: comparative anatomy, function, evolution. McGraw-Hill Higher Eduction. Boston, USA.

 

Lemly, A.D. (2002). Symptoms and implications of selenium toxicity in fish: the Belews Lake case example. Aquat. Toxicol. 57 (1-2), 39-49.

 

Park, Y.J.; Lee, M.J.; Kim, H.R.; Chung, K.H.; Oh, S.M. Developmental toxicity of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in artificially fertilized crucian carp (Carassius auratus) embryo. Sci. Totl. Enviro. 2014, 491-492, 271-278.

Teraoka, H.; Dong, W.; Hiraga, T. (2003). Zebrafish as a novel experimental model for development toxicology. Congenit. Anom. 43, 123-132.

 

Teraoka, T.; Dong, W.; Ogawa, S.; Tsukiyama, S.; Okuhara, Y.; Niiyama, M.; Ueno, N.; Peterson, R.E. (2002). 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin toxicity in the zebrafish embryo: Altered regional blood flow and impaired lower jaw development. Toxicol. Sci. 65, 192-199.

 

Tillitt, D.E.; Buckler, J.A.; Nicks, D.K.; Candrl, J.S.; Claunch, R.A.; Gale, R.W.; Puglis, H.J.; Little, E.E.; Linbo, T.L.; Baker, M. Sensitivity of lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) early life stages to 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and 3,3’,4,4’,5-pentachlorobiphenyl. 2015. Enviro. Toxicol. Chem. DOI: 10.1002/etc.3614.

 

Toomey, B.H.; Bello, S.; Hahn, M.E.; Cantrell, S.; Wright, P.; Tillitt, D.; Di Giulio, R.T. TCDD induces apoptotic cell death and cytochrome P4501A expression in developing Fundulus heteroclitus embryos. Aquat. Toxicol. 2001, 53, 127-138.

 

Walker, M.K.; Spitsbergen, J.M.; Olson, J.R.; Peterson, R.E. 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-para-dioxin (TCDD) toxicity during early life stage development of lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush). Canad. J. Fisheries Aqua. Sci. 1991, 48, 875-883.

 

Yamauchi, M.; Kim, E.Y.; Iwata, H.; Shima, Y.; Tanabe, S. Toxic effects of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) in developing red seabream (Pagrus major) embryos: an association of morphological deformities with AHR1, AHR2 and CYP1A expressions. Aquat. Toxicol. 2006, 16, 166-179.

 

Zabel, E.W; Cook, P.M.; Peterson, R.E. Toxic equivalency factors of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin, dibenzofuran and biphenyl congeners based on early-life stage mortality in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Aquat Toxicol. 1995. 31, 315-328.

Key Event Component

Evidence for Perturbation by Stressor

---

2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD)

Exposure of embryos to 2,3,7,8-TCDD causes early life stage mortality in all studied species of fishes (Doering et al 2013).

 

 

Domain of Applicability

Key Event Description

Increased early life stage mortality refers to an increase in the number of individuals dying in an experimental replicate group or in a population over a specific period of time.

In Birds:

Early life stage mortality occurs at any stage in development prior to birth/hatch and is considered embryolethal.

In Fishes:

Early Life Stage Mortality refers to death prior to yolk sac adsorption and swim-up.

How it is Measured or Detected

In birds it may be identified as failure to hatch or lack of movement within the egg when candled; heartbeat monitors are available for identifying viable avian and reptillian eggs (ex. Avitronic's Buddy monitor). In mammals, stillborn or mummified offspring, or an increased rate of resorptions early in pregnancy are all considered embryolethal, and can be detected using ultra-high frequency ultrasound (30-70 MHz; a.k.a. ultrasound biomicroscopy) (Flores et al. 2014). In fishes, mortality is typically measured by observation. Lack of any heart beat, gill movement, and body movement are typical signs of death used in the evaluation of mortality.

Regulatory Significance of the AO

Poor early life stage survival is an endpoint of major relevance to environmental regulators, as it is likely to lead to population decline.  Early-life stage, acute and chronic test guidelines have been established by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC), and are currently used in risk assessments to set limits for safe exposures.  Aquatic test guidlines are most prevalent and include OECD210, OECD229, EPA850.1400 and ECCC  EPS 1/RM/28 for fish and OECD241 for frogs.

References

1. Flores, L.E., Hildebrandt, T.B., Kuhl, A.A., and Drews, B. (2014) Early detection and staging of spontaneous embryo resorption by ultrasound biomicroscopy in murine pregnancy. Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology 12(38). DOI: 10.1186/1477-7827-12-38

2. Weinstein, B. M. (1999). What guides early embryonic blood vessel formation? Dev. Dyn. 215(1), 2-11.

Doering, J.A.; Giesy, J.P.; Wiseman S.; Hecker, M. (2013). Predicting the sensivity of fishes to dioxin-like compounds: possible role of the aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR) ligand binding domain. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 20 (3), 1219-1224.

---

List of Adjacent Key Event Relationships

List of Non Adjacent Key Event Relationships