Differential binding of endogenous steroids and chemicals to androgen receptors in rainbow trout and goldfish
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Androgen receptors (ARs) from fish were characterized in order to evaluate differences in the binding affinities of steroids and environmental chemicals between mammals and fish, among species offish, and among target tissues within a species of fish. High-affinity, low-capacity ARs were identified in cytosolic fractions of rainbow trout brains (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and the brains, ovaries, and testes of goldfish (Carassius auratus) using [3H]testosterone. The binding specificities of endogenous steroids to the ARs did not differ between goldfish tissues but did differ between goldfish and rainbow trout. Interspecies differences in binding specificities were also seen using cyproterone acetate, which bound to the ARs in the goldfish tissues, but not in the rainbow trout brains. The mammalian antiandrogens flutamide, vinclozolin and its metabolites 2-(((3,5)-dichlorophenyl-carbamo-yl)oxy)-2-methyl-3-butenoic acid and 3′,5′-dichloro-2-hydroxy-2-methylbut-3-enanilide, along with procymidone did not bind to the ARs in any of the fish tissues tested. However, other mammalian antiandrogens including methoxychlor and its metabolite 2,2-bis(p-hydroxyphenyl)-1,1,1-trichloroethane, o,p′-DDT, o,p′-dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (DDE) and p,p′-DDE did bind to the fish ARs, but only in the goldfish testes, demonstrating tissue differences in AR binding specificities of environmental chemicals. These results may be due to the presence of multiple AR isoforms in the different fish species and tissues. This study supports the growing evidence of species differences in the potency and actions of endocrine-disrupting chemicals and suggests that multiple species need to be tested when screening the receptor binding ability of potential endocrine-disrupting chemicals.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".