High-throughput transcriptomics toxicity assessment of eleven data-poor bisphenol A alternatives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bisphenol A (BPA), a widely used chemical in the production of plastics and epoxy resins, has garnered significant attention due to its association with adverse health effects, particularly its endocrine-disrupting properties. Regulatory measures aimed at reducing human exposure to BPA have led to a proliferation of alternative chemicals used in various consumer and industrial products. While these alternatives serve to reduce BPA exposure, concerns have arisen regarding their safety and potential toxicity as regrettable substitutes. Previous efforts have demonstrated that in vitro high-throughput transcriptomics (HTTr) studies can be used to assess the endocrine-disrupting potential of BPA alternatives, and this strategy produces transcriptomic points-of-departure (tPODs) that are protective of human health when compared to the PODs from traditional rodent studies. In this study, we used in vitro HTTr to assess the potential for toxicity of eleven data-poor legacy chemicals sharing structural similarities to BPA. Human breast cancer MCF-7 cells were exposed to BPA and 11 alternatives at concentrations ranging from 0.1 to 25 μM to assess toxicity. Analysis of global transcriptomic changes and a previously characterized estrogen receptor alpha (ERα) transcriptomic biomarker signature revealed that 9 of 11 chemicals altered gene expression relative to controls. One of the chemicals (2,4'-Bisphenol A) activated the ERα biomarker at the same concentration as BPA (i.e., 4,4'-BPA) but was deemed to be more potent as it induced global transcriptomic changes at lower concentrations. These results address data gaps in support of ongoing screening assessments to identify BPA alternatives with hazard potential and help to identify potential candidates that may serve as safer alternatives.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".