Technical-grade perfluorooctane sulfonate alters the expression of more transcripts in cultured chicken embryonic hepatocytes than linear perfluorooctane sulfonate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently it was discovered that the perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) detected in wildlife, such as fish-eating birds, had a greater proportion of linear PFOS (L-PFOS) than the manufactured technical product (T-PFOS), which contains linear and branched isomers. This suggests toxicological studies based on T-PFOS data may inaccurately assess exposure risk to wildlife. To determine whether PFOS effects were influenced by isomer content, we compared the transcriptional profiles of cultured chicken embryonic hepatocytes (CEH) exposed to either L-PFOS or T-PFOS using Agilent microarrays. At equal concentrations (10 µM), T-PFOS altered the expression of more transcripts (340, >1.5-fold change, p < 0.05) compared with L-PFOS (130 transcripts). Higher concentrations of L-PFOS (40 µM) were also less transcriptionally disruptive (217 transcripts) than T-PFOS at 10 µM. Functional analysis showed that L-PFOS and T-PFOS affected genes involved in lipid metabolism, hepatic system development, and cellular growth and proliferation. Pathway and interactome analysis suggested that genes may be affected through the RXR receptor, oxidative stress response, TP53 signaling, MYC signaling, Wnt/β-catenin signaling, and PPARγ and SREBP receptors. In all functional categories and pathways examined, the response elicited by T-PFOS was greater than that of L-PFOS. These data show that T-PFOS elicits a greater transcriptional response in CEH than L-PFOS alone and demonstrates the importance of considering the isomer-specific toxicological properties of PFOS when assessing exposure risk.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".