Comprehensive analysis of the effect of phytoestrogen, daidzein, on a testicular cell line, using mRNA and protein expression profile.
ABSTRACT In this study, we examined the effects of exposure to phytoestrogen (daidzein), 17beta-estradiol (E2), diethylstilbestrol (DES) and staurosporin on the TM4 testicular cell line, using comprehensive analysis, such as cDNA microarray and two-dimension polyacrylamide gel electropholesis (2D-PAGE) analysis, and we demonstrated if these toxicogenomic analyses could classify the chemical compounds. First, RNA was extracted from TM4 cells that had been treated with daidzein (80 microM), DES, E2 (40 microM) and stauroporin (100 nM) for 30 min. We performed cDNA microarray analysis, and the expression ratio data thus obtained were then analyzed using hierarchical clustering. This hierarchical clustering showed that daidzein exposure induced a different effect on gene expression change from that of E2, DES and staurosporin. Next, protein extracted from TM4 cells also underwent cDNA microarray analysis for 3 h. We performed 2D-PAGE analysis, and the spot intensity ratio data thus obtained were analyzed using hierarchical clustering. As with cDNA microarray, the hierarchical clustering of protein spot ratios showed that daidzein exposure induced a different effect on gene expression change from that of the other substances. In conclusion, we have demonstrated for the first time that classification of these chemicals can be performed by clustering analysis, using data from cDNA microarray and 2D-PAGE analyses, and that exposure to daidzein induces effects different from those of E2, DES and staurosporin.
- SourceAvailable from: cancerres.aacrjournals.org[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The developing fetus is uniquely sensitive to perturbation with estrogenic chemicals. The carcinogenic effect of prenatal exposure to diethylstilbestrol (DES) is the classic example. Because phytoestrogen use in nutritional and pharmaceutical applications for infants and children is increasing, we investigated the carcinogenic potential of genistein, a naturally occurring plant estrogen in soy, in an experimental animal model previously reported to result in a high incidence of uterine adenocarcinoma after neonatal DES exposure. Outbred female CD-1 mice were treated on days 1-5 with equivalent estrogenic doses of DES (0.001 mg/kg/day) or genistein (50 mg/kg/day). At 18 months, the incidence of uterine adenocarcinoma was 35% for genistein and 31% for DES. These data suggest that genistein is carcinogenic if exposure occurs during critical periods of differentiation. Thus, the use of soy-based infant formulas in the absence of medical necessity and the marketing of soy products designed to appeal to children should be closely examined.Cancer Research 07/2001; 61(11):4325-8. · 8.65 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: It is suspected that diet influences the risk of getting breast cancer. A study of diet and breast cancer was done among 200 Singapore Chinese women with histologically confirmed disease and 420 matched controls. A quantitative food-frequency questionnaire was used to assess intakes of selected nutrients and foods 1 year before interview. Daily intakes were computed and risk analysed after adjustment for concomitant risk factors. In premenopausal women, high intakes of animal proteins and red meat were associated with increased risk. Decreased risk was associated with high intakes of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA), beta-carotene, soya proteins, total soya products, a high PUFA to saturated fatty acid ratio, and a high proportion of soya to total protein. In multiple analysis, the variables which were significant after adjustment for each other were red meat (p less than 0.001) as a predisposing factor, and PUFA (p = 0.02), beta-carotene (p = 0.003), and soya protein (p = 0.02) as protective factors. The analysis of dietary variables in postmenopausal women gave uniformly non-significant results. Our finding that soya products may protect against breast cancer in younger women is of interest since these foods are rich in phyto-oestrogens.The Lancet 06/1991; 337(8751):1197-200. · 39.06 Impact Factor
Article: Phyto-oestrogens: where are we now?[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Phyto-oestrogens have emerged from their esoteric role in animal husbandry following the hypothesis that the human Western diet is relatively deficient in these substances compared with societies where large amounts of plant foods and legumes are eaten. Evidence is beginning to accrue that they may begin to offer protection against a wide range of human conditions, including breast, bowel, prostate and other cancers, cardiovascular disease, brain function, alcohol abuse, osteoporosis and menopausal symptoms. Of the two main classes of these weak oestrogens, the isoflavones are under intensive investigation due to their high levels in soyabean. Like the 'anti-oestrogen' Tamoxifen, these seem to have oestrogenic effects in human subjects in the cardiovascular system and bone. Although previously only available from food, isoflavones are now being marketed in health-food supplements or drinks, and tablets may soon be available over the counter as 'natural' hormone-replacement therapy. In cancer, anti-oestrogenic effects are thought to be important, although genistein especially has been shown to induce wide-ranging anti-cancer effects in cell lines independent of any hormone-related influence. There are few indications of harmful effects at present, although possible proliferative effects have been reported. In infants, the effects of high levels in soya milk formulas are uncertain. The second group, lignans, have been less investigated despite their known antioestrogenic effects and more widespread occurrence in foods. Investigation of the possible benefits of phyto-oestrogens is hampered by lack of analytical standards and, hence, inadequate methods for the measurement of low levels in most foods. This problem may prove to be a major dilemma for regulatory authorities, clinicians and others wishing to advise the general public on whether these compounds really do have the health benefits attributed to them.British Journal Of Nutrition 06/1998; 79(5):393-406. · 3.30 Impact Factor