Relative Potencies of Aroclor Mixtures Derived from Avian in Vitro Bioassays: Comparisons with Calculated Toxic Equivalents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The World Health Organization toxic equivalency factors (WHO-TEFs) for birds were developed to simplify risk assessments of environmental mixtures of dioxin-like compounds (DLCs). Under this framework, toxic equivalents (TEQs) are used to represent the toxic potency of DLC mixtures as an equivalent concentration of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin. Recently, a luciferase reporter gene (LRG) assay, measuring aryl hydrocarbon receptor 1 (AHR1)-mediated gene expression, accurately predicted the relative potency of individual polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) congeners in different avian species. The study presented here used the LRG assay to predict the relative potency of Aroclors 1016, 1221, 1242, 1248, 1254, and 1260 on induction of LRG activity in cells transfected with chicken, ring-necked pheasant, or Japanese quail AHR1 constructs. LRG assay results were compared to (1) results of ethoxyresorufin-O-deethylase (EROD) assays conducted in chicken hepatocytes and (2) calculated TEQs from the literature. The relative potencies of Aroclors were similar between the LRG and EROD assays, and bioassay-derived TEQs for the chicken closely resembled calculated TEQs. However, LRG assay-derived TEQs for the Japanese quail construct were 1-2 orders of magnitude higher than calculated TEQs for Aroclors 1254 and 1016. These results suggest that the WHO-TEFs are not representative of relative PCB potency for all avian species.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".