Cytochrome P4501A Induction by 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin and Two Chlorinated Dibenzofurans in Primary Hepatocyte Cultures of Three Avian Species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Relative potencies of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD), 2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorodibenzofuran (PeCDF), and 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran (TCDF) were determined in vitro in primary hepatocyte cultures of chicken (Gallus gallus), ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus), and Japanese quail (Coturnix japonica) embryos. Concentration-dependent effects on ethoxyresorufin O-deethylase (EROD) activity and expression of cytochrome P4501A4 and cytochrome P4501A5 (CYP1A4 and CYP1A5) messenger RNA (mRNA) were determined in hepatocytes exposed to serial dilutions of TCDD, PeCDF, or TCDF for 24 h. In chicken hepatocytes, the three compounds were equipotent inducers of EROD activity and CYP1A4/CYP1A5 mRNA expression. However, in ring-necked pheasant and Japanese quail hepatocytes, PeCDF was more potent than TCDD (3- to 5-fold in ring-necked pheasant and 13- to 30-fold in Japanese quail). Among species, the rank order of sensitivity (most to least) to EROD and CYP1A4/CYP1A5 mRNA induction for TCDD and TCDF was chicken > ring-necked pheasant > Japanese quail. In contrast, the three species were approximately equisensitive to EROD and CYP1A4/CYP1A5 mRNA induction by PeCDF. It has generally been assumed that TCDD is the most potent "dioxin-like compound" (DLC) and that the chicken is the most sensitive avian species to CYP1A induction by all DLCs. This study indicates that PeCDF is more potent than TCDD in ring-necked pheasant and Japanese quail hepatocytes and that ring-necked pheasant, Japanese quail, and chicken hepatocytes are equally sensitive to CYP1A induction by PeCDF.
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".