Chicken Embryo Cardiomyocyte Cultures—A New Approach for Studying Effects of Halogenated Aromatic Hydrocarbons in the Avian Heart
Bibliographic record
Abstract
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and other halogenated aromatic hydrocarbons (HAHs) elicit a variety of adverse biological effects on the cardiovascular systems of mammalian, piscine and avian species. Many of the cardiotoxic effects of HAHs are mediated by the aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AHR). Induction of cytochrome P4501A (CYP1A) is a well-known AHR-dependent response to HAHs in the liver, but there are a limited number of studies on CYP1A induction by these compounds in the heart. We used an in vitro approach to examine effects of TCDD and 3,3',4,4'-tetrachlorobiphenyl (PCB 77) on CYP1A in the avian heart. The responses of primary cultures of chicken embryo cardiomyocytes (CEC) and chicken embryo hepatocytes (CEH) to TCDD and PCB 77 were compared using immunofluorescence staining for CYP1A, the ethoxyresorufin-O-deethylase (EROD) assay, and real-time RT-PCR analysis of CYP1A4 mRNA and CYP1A5 mRNA. Immunofluorescent detection of CYP1A indicated that induction of CYP1A by TCDD was localized within the cytoplasm of CEC cells. EROD activity and CYP1A4/5 mRNA levels were strongly induced in CEC and CEH cultures by TCDD and PCB 77, and the shapes of the concentration-response curves in CEC and CEH cultures were similar. The studies provide clear evidence that the AHR signaling pathway is induced by TCDD and PCB 77 in CEC, and establish a new in vitro approach for studying the effects of HAHs in the avian heart. Induction of CYP1A5 by TCDD in avian cardiomyocytes is a novel finding, and might help direct future studies on mechanisms of action of HAHs in the heart.
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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".