Skip to main content

Gene X environment: the cellular environment governs the transcriptional response to environmental chemicals

Abstract

Background

An individual’s response to environmental exposures varies depending on their genotype, which has been termed the gene-environment interaction. The phenotype of cell exposed can also be a key determinant in the response to physiological cues, indicating that a cell-gene-environment interaction may exist. We investigated whether the cellular environment could alter the transcriptional response to environmental chemicals. Publicly available gene expression array data permitted a targeted comparison of the transcriptional response to a unique subclass of environmental chemicals that alter the activity of the estrogen receptor, xenoestrogens.

Results

Thirty xenoestrogens were included in the analysis, for which 426 human gene expression studies were identified. Comparisons were made for studies that met the predefined criteria for exposure length, concentration, and experimental replicates. The cellular response to the phytoestrogen genistein resulted in remarkably unique transcriptional profiles in breast, liver, and uterine cell-types. Analysis of gene regulatory networks and molecular pathways revealed that the cellular context mediated the activation or repression of functions important to cellular organization and survival, including opposing effects by genistein in breast vs. liver and uterine cell-types. When controlling for cell-type, xenoestrogens regulate unique gene networks and biological functions, despite belonging to the same class of environmental chemicals. Interestingly, the genetic sex of the cell-type also strongly influenced the transcriptional response to xenoestrogens in the liver, with only 22% of the genes significantly regulated by genistein common between male and female cells.

Conclusions

Our results demonstrate that the transcriptional response to environmental chemicals depends on a variety of factors, including the cellular context, the genetic sex of a cell, and the individual chemical. These findings highlight the importance of evaluating the impact of exposure across cell-types, as the effect is responsive to the cellular environment. These comparative genetic results support the concept of a cell-gene-environment interaction.

Background

Disease risk or variation in disease susceptibility across populations reflects the complex interaction between an individual’s genotype and their environment [1]. This model of gene-environment interactions holds the potential for targeted interventions to high-risk groups for broad public health benefit [2]. However, few studies have identified candidate genes or their genetic alterations that possess a significant interaction with the environment and disease risk [3,4,5]. One potential challenge to detecting gene-environment interactions is the assumption that genes are regulated and expressed in consistent manner across all cell-types. Instead, the transcription of DNA sequences into biologically relevant mRNA is mediated by the context of that cell, such that transcript levels of specific genes vary across cell-types [6, 7]. While specificity in gene regulation allows specialized cells to perform distinct functions essential to the biology of the resident tissue, this specificity argues that the cellular environment may also modulate disease risk when considering gene-environment interactions.

Transcription factor activity is gated by a number of factors, including DNA sequence, chromatin environment, the presence or absence of regulatory co-factors, post-translational modifications to the transcription factor, and ligand chemistry. For example, the genes regulated by 17β-estradiol (E2)-activated estrogen receptor alpha (ERα) were found to be specific to cervical or kidney cells, dependent on the co-factors present [8]. In addition, minor changes in the chemical structure of the endogenous estrogens (E1, E2, and E3) can alter the activity of ligand-bound ER. ERα can bind both estradiol (E2) and the metabolite of estradiol, estrone (E1), but when comparing the transcriptional response to these closely related ligands, the type and magnitude differs [9,10,11]. Man-made chemicals that closely resemble the structure of endogenous ligands can further diversify the molecular response of a transcription factor.

Endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) are exogenous compounds that can mimic or block the activity of endogenous hormones through interactions with their receptors, thereby affecting the normal function of these hormones. EDCs are encountered through a variety of mechanisms, including pharmaceuticals, food additives, plastic bottles, detergents, herbicides/insecticides, flame retardants, personal care products, toys, and consumer food packaging. Xenoestrogens are a well-characterized subclass of EDCs that mimics some structural characteristics of the endogenous estrogen compounds, and therefore, can act as estrogens or interfere with the actions of endogenous estrogens on the ER. Estrogen signaling plays an important role in the physiology of many organs, including the brain, vascular system, skeletal muscle, bone, adipose tissue, mammary gland, ovary, and uterus [12,13,14,15]. As such, chemicals that alter the activity of endogenous estrogens or inappropriately activate the estrogen signaling pathway can disturb the normal physiology of these organs, contributing to disease risk.

Due to the environmental abundance and the physiological implications of xenoestrogen exposure, numerous studies have measured the transcriptional response to xenoestrogens in a variety of human cell-types, although the individual studies largely focused on one cell-type [16,17,18,19]. Yet, the cellular plasticity in transcription factor activity suggests that the outcome of xenoestrogen exposure in one cell-type may not be universal. Functional assays have demonstrated that EDCs produce unique biological responses depending on the cell-type assayed. For example, 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) inhibits proliferation in colorectal and liver cancer cells but increases proliferation in human keratinocytes [20,21,22].

In this study, we evaluate publicly available gene expression data using an unbiased approach to determine the transcriptional response to specific xenoestrogen across cell-types and to compare the effects of various xenoestrogens when controlling for cell-type. We hypothesized that the cellular environment, including organ of origin and genetic sex, would be important factors mediating the transcriptional response to environmental chemicals. To assess the difference in gene expression induced by a single xenoestrogen across different cell-types, datasets were collected from human breast, liver, and endometrial cells treated with genistein. We then evaluated the transcriptional effects of several EDCs (TCDD, bisphenol A (BPA), genistein, diethylstilbestrol (DES), and ethinyl estradiol (EE2)) in a single human liver cell line. Sex-related differences were evaluated by comparing the gene expression profiles of human liver HepG2 and HepaRG cells, which originated from a male and female subject, respectively. Our findings show that the cellular environment is an important determining factor when evaluating the response to environmental chemicals. Thus, human public health genomics and toxicogenomics studies should consider multiple cellular sources when predicting EDC risk.

Methods

Array dataset collection

The National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) DataSets (https://0-www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.brum.beds.ac.uk/gds) and the EMBL-European Bioinformatics Institute ArrayExpress (https://www.ebi.ac.uk/arrayexpress/) databases were utilized to identify publicly available gene expression data. Databases were initially queried in November 2018 and reevaluated for updates in October 2019. Searches within GEO were filtered by “Expression profiling by array” and “Expression profiling by high throughput sequencing.” Searches within ArrayExpress were filtered by RNA assays, specifically array and sequencing assays. Results were limited by organism to Homo sapiens. GEO and ArrayExpress were queried for datasets from human cell lines treated with the following chemicals: Genistein (GEN), Bisphenol A (BPA), 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD), Polychlorinated bisphenol (77, 153, 138, 126; PCB), 17α-Ethinylestradiol (EE2), 4-Nonylphenol (NP), Di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP), Estrone, Daidzein, Diethylstilbestrol (DES), Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), Methoxychlor (MOC), Atrazine, Bisphenol S (BPS), Bisphenol AF (BPAF), Benzophenone-2, Zearalenone, Bisphenol B (BPB), Testosterone propionate, Triphenylethylene, 3-Tetramethylbutyl, 4-Cumyphenol, 4-Dodecylphenol, 5HPP-33, Dodecylphenol, Equilin, Ethylhexylparaben, Meso-hexestrol, Mestranol, and Norgestrel. The structures for these chemicals were created using ChemDraw 18.0 (PerkinElmer, Waltham, MS, USA). The following information was collected from each dataset: GEO Series (GSE) accession number, cell line, genotypic sex of the cell, EDC name, treatment concentration, incubation time, number of replicates, and GEO Sample (GSM) numbers of both the chemical-treated samples and intra-experimental controls (Supplemental Table 1).

Identification of differentially expressed genes

The raw data files were imported to the Partek Genomics Suite 6.6 software as CEL files (Partek, St. Louis, MO, USA). Datasets were analyzed using the “Gene Expression” workflow. Imported samples were assigned a categorical attribute for treatment. The principal component analysis was visualized by attribute (Supplemental Figure 1). Differentially expressed genes were detected by selecting the attribute as the interaction for the ANOVA and contrasting treatment vs. control. Lists of differentially regulated genes were created by using the contrast function with the settings of “have any change” and “p value < 0.05.” The gene symbol and title, p value, and fold change data were exported for further analyses. InteractiVenn (http://www.interactivenn.net/) created Venn diagrams to visualize the unique and commonly regulated genes within the lists of differentially expressed genes [23].

Gene ontology analysis

Differentially expressed genes that met statistical significance were analyzed with the Ingenuity Pathway Analysis software (IPA; Qiagen, Valencia, CA, USA) to determine gene annotations. Gene set enrichment for the canonical signaling pathways and molecular and cellular functions was determined by IPA using the Fisher’s exact test with a cutoff of p < 0.05. Pathways and functions were ranked using the ratio of the number of genes from the dataset that mapped to the pathway divided by the total number of genes mapped in that pathway.

Results

Identification of available gene expression datasets and inclusion criteria

To determine whether chemicals with known ER activity would demonstrate transcriptional plasticity in response to the cellular environment, we searched the NCBI GEO and ArrayExpress databases for gene expression data in which various human cell lines were treated with xenoestrogens [24]. We identified 91 publicly available gene expression profiling series in the GEO and ArrayExpress databases, which included 426 unique datasets for the chemicals searched (Supplemental Table 1). We found gene expression data for 18 of the 30 queried xenoestrogens: GEN, BPA, TCDD, PCBs, EE2, DEHP, NP, DDT, Daidzein, DES, Estrone, MOC, BPS, Atrazine, BPAF, Benzophenone-2, BPB, and Zearalenone (Supplemental Table 2). GEN and BPA had the greatest number of datasets available (97 and 94, respectively), while 3 xenoestrogens, Benzophenone-2, BPB, and Zearalenone only had 1 dataset available (Supplemental Table 3). Overall, the immortalized breast cancer cell line MCF-7 (ATCC® HTB-22™) was the most represented human cell-type, with 155 gene expression datasets, followed by HepG2 (ATCC® HB-8065™) (n = 51) and Ishikawa (ATCC® 13,347™) (n = 48).

In order to understand the direct transcriptional response of each xenoestrogen, datasets were sorted by incubation time (Fig. 1a). For most of the datasets, cells were treated for relatively long incubation periods (> 24 h), which may reflect secondary or tertiary effects of the xenoestrogen on transcription. To focus on primary effects, we applied a timepoint cutoff of ≤ 12 h for the inclusion of gene expression datasets. Interestingly, only 35% of the datasets were studies with an experimental endpoint 12 h or less (Fig. 1b). The concentration of the chemical treatment is also an important factor for translating in vitro studies to relevant, real-world exposures. Therefore, the identified datasets were grouped by treatment concentration (Fig. 1c). The gene expression datasets included experimental doses ranging from 3 fM to 200 mM, and the concentration range varied greatly by chemical. For example, we identified datasets for BPA ranging from 1 pM to 200 mM. Moreover, all experiments performed with EE2, Estrone, and BPAF utilized a treatment exposure of less than 5 μM, while all gene expression datasets from atrazine-treated cells utilized an exposure of > 5.1 μM. To more closely relate to potential environmental exposures, we selected a treatment exposure of ≤ 5 μM as the cutoff for gene expression data to be included in our comparative analyses. Therefore, all atrazine datasets were excluded from subsequent analyses based on the exposure dose, and 34% of the identified datasets did not meet the inclusion criteria (Fig. 1d). Of note, to make the comparison across xenoestrogens to the endogenous estrogen estradiol (E2) in one cell-type, the lowest concentration of E2 applied to HepG2 and HepaRG cells was 30 μM (Supplemental Table 4) [25]. Finally, gene expression datasets were evaluated by replicate number for each treatment group (Fig. 1e). To perform statistical analysis, it was necessary that each treatment group have at least 3 experimental replicates. We found that 33% of the gene expression datasets did not have a sufficient number of replicates (Fig. 1f). The overall inclusion criteria for analysis was ≤ 12 h exposure time, ≤ 5 μM dose, and ≥ 3 experimental replicates (Fig. 1g). When these criteria were applied collectively, only 12% of the 426 identified gene expression datasets met the inclusion criteria (Fig. 1h). Furthermore, none of the studies where cells were treated with PCB’s, DEHP, DDT, Daidzein, Estrone, MOC, or Atrazine met the inclusion criteria, and these chemicals are not represented in the subsequent analyses. The examination of publicly available datasets demonstrates that experimental design with environmental chemicals is highly variable, restricting the ability for effects to be compared across datasets.

Fig. 1
figure1

Xenoestrogen datasets evaluated by exposure length, concentration, and number of experimental replicates. a Datasets sorted by the incubation time of chemical exposure and graphed by xenoestrogen. b Datasets grouped by incubation times ≤ 12 h (green) and > 12 h (red). Criteria for subsequent analysis ≤ 12 h. c The concentration ranges of chemicals per dataset. d Datasets grouped by concentrations ≤ 5 μM (green) and > 5 μM (red). Criteria for subsequent analysis ≤ 5 μM. e Datasets sorted by the number of experimental replicates where n ≥ 3 is depicted in green and n < 3 is red. d Datasets grouped by replicate number. Criteria for subsequent analysis n ≥ 3. f Datasets congruous with analysis criteria (incubation time, concentration range, and replicate number) were graphed by chemical (green). Datasets not meeting all three criteria are depicted in red. g Datasets grouped by inclusion (green) and exclusion (red) from subsequent analysis

The cellular environment mediates the transcriptional response to genistein

Controlling for chemical and genetic sex, we identified three cell-types to evaluate whether the cellular environment influences the transcriptional response to xenoestrogens, MCF-7 (breast), HepaRG (liver), and Ishikawa (endometrium). The datasets were derived from experiments in which all cell lines were treated for 6 h with 1 μM GEN, and these datasets were previously reported as part of a larger connectivity map of gene arrays from multiple chemicals [26]. A Venn diagram was created to visualize the unique and commonly regulated genes (Fig. 2a). GEN exposure resulted in the cell-specific regulation of several thousand genes per cell-type: 1799 unique genes in MCF-7 cells, 2560 unique genes in HepaRG cells, and 2282 unique genes in Ishikawa cells. Despite an identical experimental design, less than 25% of the significantly regulated genes in each cell-type were shared with the other two cell-types. We determined the top 10 induced and repressed genes by cell-type (Fig. 2b). Remarkably, none of the top regulated genes were shared by the three cell-types. LUC7 like 3 pre-mRNA splicing factor (LUC7L3) and serine- and arginine-rich splicing factor 5 (SRSF5) were common to two cell-types but repressed in MCF-7 and induced in Ishikawa cells. These data show that a cellular environment strongly influences the transcriptional response to environmental chemicals.

Fig. 2
figure2

Transcriptional response to genistein across cell-types. Gene expression data was identified for cells treated with 1 μM genistein for 6 h. a The genistein-regulated genes within each cell line were compared by a Venn diagram to identify unique and commonly regulated genes. b The top 10 induced and repressed genes are listed by cell line. c A comparison analysis of the most significantly associated canonical pathways sorted by predicted activation z score. d A comparison analysis of the top molecular and cellular functions sorted by predicted activation z score

To understand the signaling pathways and biological functions related to those transcriptional changes induced by GEN exposure, we examined gene annotations using the IPA gene ontology software. A gene enrichment comparison analysis of the canonical signaling pathways, including an assigned activation z-score that infers the likely activation status of each pathway, was performed for the genes regulated by GEN in the three cell lines (Fig. 2c; comparison based on p value in Supplemental Figure 2). The predicted activation z score varied by cell-type, with only “tRNA Charging” and “BMP Signaling Pathway” having a similar activation status across cell-types. The heatmap of the top Molecular and Cellular Functions also displayed variability in the activation z score by cell-type (Fig. 2d). Here, the functions regulated by GEN were more similar in HepaRG and Ishikawa cells compared to MCF-7 cells. Interestingly, functions related to cytoplasmic or cytoskeletal organization were altered in an opposing manner by GEN in MCF-7 cells compared to HepaRG and Ishikawa cells. These findings demonstrate that the biological effect of environmental chemicals is mediated by the cell-type exposed, demonstrating an interaction between the gene, cellular environment, and biological response.

Xenoestrogens induce a unique transcriptional response in HepG2 cells

Although many of the xenoestrogens share a similar chemical structure and binding affinity for estrogen receptors, the receptor conformation induced by xenoestrogen binding and the biological response is unique (Fig. 3a) [27,28,29]. Therefore, we hypothesized that each xenoestrogen would produce a distinct transcriptional response. To compare the transcriptional response produced in response to various xenoestrogens while controlling for cell-type, differentially expressed genes from datasets in HepG2 cells meeting the inclusion criteria were compared. Datasets were available for BPA, DES, EE2, GEN, and TCDD, which were included in previously published studies [26, 30]. In these datasets, HepG2 cells were treated for 6 h (1 μM BPA, 1 μM EE2, 1 μM GEN, or 10 nM TCDD) or 12 h (5 μM DES). Genes differentially regulated by xenoestrogens were compared to those differentially regulated by E2 in HepG2 cells.

Fig. 3
figure3

Comparison of transcriptional response controlling for cell-type. Differentially expressed genes were identified for HepG2 cells exposed to 1 μM ethinyl estradiol (EE2), 10 nM 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (TCDD), 5 μM diethylstilbestrol (DES), 1 μM bisphenol A (BPA), or 1 μM genistein (GEN) for 6 h or 30 μM estradiol (E2) for 12 h. a The chemical structures of E2, EE2, TCDD, DES, BPA, and GEN were created using Chemdraw 18.0. b The xenoestrogen-regulated genes in HepG2 cells were compared by a Venn diagram to identify unique and commonly regulated genes. c The top 10 induced and repressed genes are listed by chemical. d A comparison analysis of the top canonical pathways utilizing the predicted activation z score. e A comparison analysis of the top molecular and cellular functions utilizing the predicted activation z score. f Induced (red) and repressed (green) molecules associated with the “Estrogen Receptor Signaling” pathway visualized for each chemical

A Venn diagram was constructed to visualize the overlapping and uniquely regulated genes (Fig. 3b). BPA treatment resulted in the greatest number of differentially regulated genes (5374), while DES treatment generated the least (983). We identified eight genes that were commonly regulated by E2 and the five xenoestrogens: rho guanine nucleotide exchange factor 12 (ARHGEF12), tight junction protein 2 (TJP2), sorbin and SH3 domain containing 2 (SORBS2), solute carrier family 25 member 37 (SLC25A37), eukaryotic translation initiation factor 3 subunit L (EIF3L), AF4/FMR2 family member 4 (AFF4), death associated protein 3 (DAP3), and tumor protein P73 (TP73). When comparing the differentially expressed genes of the five xenoestrogens evaluated, BPA treatment shared the most genes in common with E2 (706), while DES treatment shared the least in common with E2 (163). Moreover, each xenoestrogen produced a subset of uniquely regulated genes, not shared with E2 or the other xenoestrogens (Supplemental Table 5). We determined the top 10 genes induced by treatment and the top 10 genes repressed by treatment (Fig. 3c). Although no gene was common to all treatments, some genes were shared between several groups. For example, cytochrome P450 family 1 subfamily A member 1 (CYP1A1) was induced by E2 and TCDD and repressed by EE2.

To determine the functional significance of the differentially regulated genes, we evaluated gene annotations using the IPA gene ontology software. A gene enrichment comparison analysis was performed for the canonical signaling pathways and molecular and cellular functions. The top 15 canonical signaling pathways (Fig. 3d) and molecular and cellular functions (Fig. 3e) are listed (comparison based on p value in Supplemental Figure 3). Strikingly, the activation status for each canonical signaling pathway varied greatly by chemical in HepG2 cells. Although DES and E2 shared the fewest genes in common, the heatmap of activation z scores for DES most closely resembled that of E2, demonstrating similar activation scores for approximately half of the canonical signaling pathways. The heatmaps for E2 and GEN were the most dissimilar, sharing similar activation scores for only 2 of the 15 top canonical signaling pathways. The top canonical pathways suggest a strong association with signaling related to cellular metabolism, regeneration, and repair [31, 32]. The gene enrichment data for the top molecular and cellular functions suggest that E2 and the xenoestrogens are potent regulators of cell death, survival, and movement in HepG2 cells. The molecular and cellular functions of TCDD and GEN most closely resembled those of E2, sharing similar predicted activation scores for cell viability, migration of tumor cell lines, and apoptosis.

To evaluate the predicted impact of these xenoestrogens on ER signaling, we utilized the IPA software to overlay the expression values of the differentially regulated genes on the “Estrogen Receptor Signaling” pathway, which highlights important components of ER signaling (Fig. 3f). Expression data of E2 treatment in HepG2 cells identified 14 significantly regulated molecules in the “Estrogen Receptor Signaling” pathway. EE2, TCDD, DES, BPA, and GEN also significantly regulated many molecules in the “Estrogen Receptor Signaling” pathway, supporting the potential of these chemicals to alter estrogen responsiveness. Certain molecules were commonly regulated by E2 and the xenoestrogens (RNA Polymerase II, Taf, and TRAP/Media), although the directionality of regulation was unique to the chemical and in some cases, the signaling molecule included both induced and repressed components (e.g., TRAP/Media). When controlling for cell-type, these results demonstrate that xenoestrogen exposure results in both overlapping and unique transcriptional responses, which likely support the divergent biological response to various xenoestrogens.

The role of genetic sex in mediating the cellular response to EDCs

The sexual dimorphic response specific to ER action has been associated with the development of or protection from certain diseases (e.g., metabolic syndrome and autoimmune diseases) [33,34,35,36]. As such, animal studies have demonstrated that exogenous exposures that inappropriately alter ER signaling can increase the relative risk for these diseases [37,38,39]. To determine whether the genetic sex of a cell could influence the transcriptional response to the xenoestrogens, we repeated our analysis of differentially expressed genes in HepaRG cells, which were derived from the liver of a female patient [40]. Due to fewer available datasets, the analysis in HepaRG cells did not include DES treatment. Like HepG2 cells, the analysis in HepaRG cells included 6 h (1 μM BPA, 1 μM EE2, 1 μM GEN, and 10 nM TCDD), which was compared to a dataset from HepaRG cells treated for 12 h with E2 (Fig. 4a).

Fig. 4
figure4

Comparison of transcriptional response to xenoestrogens in genetically female liver cells. Differentially expressed genes were determined for HepaRG cells treated with 1 μM ethinyl estradiol (EE2), 1 μM bisphenol A (BPA), 1 μM genistein (GEN), 10 nM 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (TCDD) for 6 h or 30 μM estradiol (E2) for 12 h. a The chemical structures of E2, EE2, TCDD, BPA, and GEN were created using Chemdraw 18.0. b The xenoestrogen-regulated genes in HepaRG cells were compared by a Venn diagram to identify unique and commonly regulated genes. c The top 10 induced and repressed genes are listed by chemical. d A comparison analysis of the most significantly associated canonical pathways visualized by activation z score. e A comparison analysis of the top molecular and cellular functions utilizing the predicted activation z score. f Induced (red) and repressed (green) molecules associated with the “Estrogen Receptor Signaling” pathway visualized for each chemical

The Venn diagram of significantly regulated genes identified 241 genes that were common between E2 and the xenoestrogens (Fig. 4b). Compared to HepG2 cells, the xenoestrogens and E2 shared a greater number of commonly regulated genes in HepaRG cells. Commonly regulated genes were also apparent in the lists of top induced and repressed genes (Fig. 4c). For example, ADP ribosylation factor like GTPase 14 (ARL14), chromobox 5 (CBX5), nuclear factor I C (NFIC), epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), and talin 1 (TLN1) were included in the top regulated genes by EE2, BPA, and GEN. To determine how the activation status of predicted canonical signaling pathways and molecular and cellular functions would be altered by genetic sex, we evaluated gene annotations of the significantly regulated genes using the IPA software (comparison based on p value in Supplemental Figure 4). Interestingly, the top canonical signaling pathways regulated by E2 and the xenoestrogens were remarkably different in HepaRG cells compared to HepG2 cells, with only “Oxidative Phosphorylation” common to both cell lines (Fig. 4d). Although this pathway was highly regulated in HepaRG and HepG2 cells, the predicted activation status of “Oxidative Phosphorylation” for E2, EE2, BPA, and Gen was reversed in HepaRG cells compared to HepG2 cells. This suggests that the genetic sex of a cell has a strong influence on whether to activate or repress the transcription of target genes. The genetic sex of the cell also altered the type of canonical signaling pathways regulated, with a greater representation of immune-related pathways in the female HepaRG cells and more metabolism-related pathways in the male HepG2 cells. Compared to the canonical signaling pathways, the top molecular and cellular functions demonstrated slightly greater overlap between HepaRG and HepG2 cells, where 5 of the top 15 shared between the two cell lines (Fig. 4e). In HepaRG cells, there was a high degree of similarity between the activation status of functions regulated by E2 and TCDD and those regulated by EE2, BPA, and GEN when compared to the variability in activation status across chemicals in HepG2 cells.

The expression values of genes differentially regulated in HepaRG cells were overlaid on the “Estrogen Receptor Signaling” pathway (Fig. 4f). In HepaRG cells, E2 regulated fewer and different molecules compared to HepG2 cells. EE2, BPA, and GEN regulated many more molecules in the “Estrogen Receptor Signaling” pathway in HepaRG cells compared to HepG2 cells. These comparisons further illustrate how the genetic sex of a cell can result in regulatory specificity of a signaling pathway.

Genetic sex influences the transcriptional response to genistein in hepatocytes

As there was a large difference in the number of genes regulated by GEN in HepaRG and HepG2 cells, a direct comparison was conducted to evaluate the effect of genetic sex on the response to the phytoestrogen genistein. In both datasets, cells were treated for 6 h with 1 μM GEN. GEN treatment regulated almost twice as many genes in HepaRG cells compared to HepG2 cells (Fig. 5a). Moreover, less than 30% of the genes regulated by GEN in HepaRG cells were also regulated in HepG2 cells. Instead, 5060 genes were uniquely regulated by GEN in HepaRG cells. Not surprisingly, none of the top 15 induced or repressed genes were common between the two cell lines (Fig. 5b). Despite the stark differences in the number of genes regulated in hepatocyte cell lines of different sex, the activation status of the top predicted canonical signaling pathways (Fig. 5c) and molecular and cellular functions were very similar in the direct comparison (Fig. 5d) (comparison based on p value in Supplemental Figure 5). Notable differences between the two cell lines included the p value of the “Estrogen Receptor Signaling” pathway in HepaRG cells (2.08 × 10−11) and HepG2 cells (1.89 × 10−1), and the “Oxidative Phosphorylation” pathway was predicted to be activated in HepaRG cells and repressed in HepG2 cells. These analyses suggest that genes uniquely regulated by GEN in response to genetic sex may converge on similar cellular signaling pathways and functions.

Fig. 5
figure5

The transcriptional response of genetically female (HepaRG) and male (HepG2) hepatocytes to 1 μM GEN for 6 h. a A Venn diagram of similar and unique significantly altered genes (p < 0.05) in HepaRG and HepG2 cells. Top 10 induced or repressed genes in HepaRG (b) and HepG2 (c) cells. Top 10 predicted canonical signaling pathways and molecular and cellular functions by GEN in HepaRG (d) and HepG2 (e) cells. Induced or repressed molecules of the “Estrogen Receptor Signaling” pathway by GEN in HepaRG (f) and HepG2 (g) cells

Discussion

The potential to interfere with endogenous cell signaling and contribute to pathophysiology has led to a myriad of studies that explored the mechanistic actions of xenoestrogens via gene expression studies. Many of these studies were limited to targeted cell-types, and the limitation of this approach is that conclusions deduced from one cell-type may not reflect the response in other cell-types, which express differing levels of the affected receptor, a cell-specific repertoire of transcriptional co-factors, and a unique chromatin environment. Our results suggest that in order to understand how xenoestrogens alter overall physiology, human cell lines originating from multiple organs and of different genetic sex must be utilized in gene expression studies to identify the cell-gene-environment interaction.

A total of 426 gene expression datasets were identified, although 88% of these datasets did not meet our inclusion criteria. The major constraint of comparing effects across a range of chemicals is the substantial differences in study design. For example, the identified gene expression studies included exposure lengths from 30 min to a 1-year chronic exposure. Moreover, the chemical concentration used for exposure ranged from 3 fm to 200 mM, which encompasses an order of magnitude for molarity from 10−15 to 10−1, respectively. Such a range provides the advantage of a broad analysis but also likely includes concentrations outside the range of expected exposure and into the spectrum of toxicity. Including RNA from cells that have entered the cell death pathway can confound results when evaluating intracellular signaling. For example, human serum BPA levels are estimated at 0.002–0.004 μM, but in some reported datasets, BPA was tested in HepG2 cells up to 200 mM [41, 42]. The half maximal concentration of BPA when evaluating 24 h cytotoxicity in HepG2 cells was demonstrated to be 261 μM, suggesting that gene expression studies performed with HepG2 cells treated for 48 h with millimolar concentrations may reflect the induction of cell death rather than endocrine disrupting activities [42]. Another important consideration when determining the physiological effect of EDCs is the in vivo metabolism of environmental chemicals into conjugated forms, which can alter their bioactivity [43]. In humans, BPA measured in urine and serum exists as an unconjugated form (20–32%), a glucuronidated form (46–57%), and as a sulfated form (7–34%) [44]. The glucuronidated form of BPA is biologically active, although its activity on the estrogen receptor differs from that of unconjugated BPA [45, 46]. Thus, in vitro studies replicating human exposure should consider how chemical metabolism impacts the relative levels of conjugated and unconjugated forms found in serum and adjust their treatment concentrations to reflect the bioavailable fraction of the studied chemical.

In this study, we found that the origin of the cell-type dictated the transcriptional response to the xenoestrogen genistein when controlling for concentration and exposure length. Context-driven plasticity is an important consideration for transcriptional regulatory factors and is based on the premise that the intracellular milieu of cofactors, epigenetically regulated chromatin environment, and differential usage of enhancer regions dictate the transcriptional response to a given stimulus [47, 48]. Thus, one potential source of transcriptional variation across cell-types is the relative expression of the estrogen receptors, which can mediate the effects of genistein [49]. Comparing the expression of ER in the three cell-types evaluated (liver, breast, and endometrium) using Human Protein Atlas demonstrated that ERα mRNA transcripts are highest in the endometrium, moderate in the breast, and relatively lower in the liver [50]. Protein levels of ERα followed a similar pattern, although ERα protein was not detected in the liver. The tissue expression of the estrogen receptor isoform ERβ is unique from ERα and reported as greater in the breast than the endometrium and relatively low in the liver. Differences in the abundance of ER isoforms provide one mechanism contributing to the unique transcriptional responses when cells originating from different organs are exposed to the same concentration of genistein. In addition to its estrogenic effects, genistein can inhibit the activity of receptor tyrosine kinases in a dose-dependent manner [51]. Thus, another source of transcriptional variation from genistein exposures could originate from the relative activity of receptor tyrosine kinase signaling in the studied cell-types. A third potential source of transcriptional variation between cell-types is the cell-specific chromatin environment. The accessibility of genomic regions, termed open chromatin, varies between cells, and subsequent activation of ER results in unique, cell-specific genomic interactions [52, 53]. When comparing the T47D breast cancer cell line and Ishikawa cells, only 19% of the ERα-binding sites are common between these two cell-types [54]. Finally enhancer regions, distal regulatory regions offering spatiotemporal control over transcriptional activity, differ between cell-types [48]. For example, a query of tumor-specific enhancer regions that regulate the expression of the MYC proto-oncogene identified seven up-stream regions in the colon cancer HCT-116 cell line and two enhancer regions down-stream of MYC in the leukemia K562 cell line [48]. Ultimately, transcriptional specificity across cell-types is a highly variable combination of transcription factor interactions with ligands and co-factors and the availability of DNA binding sites [55].

This study also found significant differences when comparing the transcriptional response to xenoestrogens within the same cell-type, which may reflect properties specific to the xenoestrogen. The xenoestrogens investigated are largely capable of binding ER, although these chemicals demonstrate unique binding affinities for the two ER isoforms [56,57,58,59]. For example, genistein has a stronger affinity for ERβ than ERα, while BPA has a relatively weak affinity for both ER isoforms. Moreover, the xenoestrogens exert differential effects on ER activity. For example, BPA is a complete ERβ antagonist, while diethylstilbestrol has agonistic effects, and genistein is partially agonistic [56,57,58,59,60]. Some of the xenoestrogens evaluated also have documented effects in the absence of ER through binding other receptors. For example, TCDD elicits its xenoestrogenic effects through binding AhR, rather than either ER isoform [61, 62]. Furthermore, genistein, BPA, and diethylstilbestrol have known affinities for the estrogen-related receptors (ERRs), orphan nuclear receptors that do not appear to bind any estrogen [63,64,65]. The unique binding affinities and agonistic/antagonistic relationships of these xenoestrogens with estrogen and non-estrogen receptors likely contribute to variability in the differentially regulated genes when comparing xenoestrogens within one cell type.

Genetic sex is also increasingly being recognized as an important mediating factor in the cellular response, leading to a recent overhaul in the experimental design of all NIH-sponsored studies (reviewed in [66,67,68]). Although the HepG2 and HepaRG cell lines both represent human hepatoma cells, the same environmental exposure resulted in distinct differentially expressed genes in the male HepG2 compared to the female HepaRG cells. We found that only 28% of the genes differentially regulated in HepaRG cells was also significantly regulated in the HepG2 cells. These findings are similar to those reported in a study by Jennen et al., where chemical exposure largely produced HepG2- and HepaRG-unique genes [25]. Sexual dimorphic responses have also been described in primary hepatocytes [69]. Both our current findings and previous studies highlight a need for addressing sex as a source of a variation beyond whole-organismal findings and extending the scope of sex-based differences to the cellular level.

Due to our strict criteria for inclusion in analysis, potential limitations exist in our study. For example, the comparison of effects across cell-types was limited to three cell lines based on available datasets. Moreover, the restriction on concentration used eliminated all datasets from analysis for certain chemicals. Additionally, reposited data represent gene expression studies that employed various array platforms, which may introduce some variation in represented genes. Nonetheless, the identified datasets largely originated from the same gene expression super series (GSE69851), which exclusively utilized the Affymetrix Human Genome U219 Array. This array platform was used in 10 out of 13 datasets used for analysis. The remaining three datasets utilized the Affymetrix Human Genome U133 Plus 2.0 Array. The primary difference between these two Affymetrix arrays is an increase in the total probe sets included in the U219 array. However, greater than 90% of the probe sets on the U219 Array are shared by the U133 Plus 2.0 Array.

Conclusions

The findings presented here suggest that while xenoestrogens belong to the same EDC subgroup, they exert diverse effects on transcription. Moreover, the effect on transcription is highly regulated by the type of cell exposed. We also provide evidence that genetic sex can mediate how an EDC alters gene expression. This study highlights the importance of evaluating multiple cell-types when exploring the transcriptional response to EDCs. Conclusions based on a single cell-type or representing only one genetic sex may not accurately reflect the ability of a chemical to interfere with the normal physiology of endocrine tissues throughout the body. Thus, future studies can broaden the translational relevance of gene-environment interaction studies by considering the effect of EDCs across a range of cell-types.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets analyzed as part of this study are publicly available via https://0-www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.brum.beds.ac.uk/geo/ and https://www.ebi.ac.uk/arrayexpress/.

References

  1. 1.

    Khoury MJ, Adams MJ Jr, Flanders WD. An epidemiologic approach to ecogenetics. Am J Hum Genet. 1988;42(1):89–95.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Collins FS, McKusick VA. Implications of the Human Genome Project for medical science. JAMA. 2001;285(5):540–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Brooks PJ, Enoch MA, Goldman D, Li TK, Yokoyama A. The alcohol flushing response: an unrecognized risk factor for esophageal cancer from alcohol consumption. PLoS Med. 2009;6(3):e50.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Wu C, Kraft P, Zhai K, Chang J, Wang Z, Li Y, et al. Genome-wide association analyses of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in Chinese identify multiple susceptibility loci and gene-environment interactions. Nat Genet. 2012;44(10):1090–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Aschard H, Lutz S, Maus B, Duell EJ, Fingerlin TE, Chatterjee N, et al. Challenges and opportunities in genome-wide environmental interaction (GWEI) studies. Hum Genet. 2012;131(10):1591–613.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Chi SM, Seo YK, Park YK, Yoon S, Park CY, Kim YS, et al. REGNET: mining context-specific human transcription networks using composite genomic information. BMC Genomics. 2014;15:450.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Eeckhoute J, Metivier R, Salbert G. Defining specificity of transcription factor regulatory activities. J Cell Sci. 2009;122(Pt 22):4027–34.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Cerillo G, Rees A, Manchanda N, Reilly C, Brogan I, White A, et al. The oestrogen receptor regulates NFkappaB and AP-1 activity in a cell-specific manner. The Journal of steroid biochemistry and molecular biology. 1998;67(2):79–88.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    MacIndoe JH, Woods GR, Etre LA. The specific binding of estradiol and estrone and the subsequent distribution of estrogen-receptor complexes within MCF-7 human breast cancer cells. Steroids. 1982;39(3):245–58.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Lippman M, Monaco ME, Bolan G. Effects of estrone, estradiol, and estriol on hormone-responsive human breast cancer in long-term tissue culture. Cancer research. 1977;37(6):1901–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Terasaka S, Aita Y, Inoue A, Hayashi S, Nishigaki M, Aoyagi K, et al. Using a customized DNA microarray for expression profiling of the estrogen-responsive genes to evaluate estrogen activity among natural estrogens and industrial chemicals. Environmental health perspectives. 2004;112(7):773–81.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Hamilton KJ, Hewitt SC, Arao Y, Korach KS. Estrogen hormone biology. Curr Top Dev Biol. 2017;125:109–46.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Khan D, Ansar AS. The immune system is a natural target for estrogen action: opposing effects of estrogen in two prototypical autoimmune diseases. Frontiers in immunology. 2015;6:635.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Findlay JK, Liew SH, Simpson ER, Korach KS. Estrogen signaling in the regulation of female reproductive functions. Handb Exp Pharmacol. 2010;198:29–35.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Dostalova P, Zatecka E, Dvorakova-Hortova K. Of oestrogens and sperm: a review of the roles of oestrogens and oestrogen receptors in male reproduction. Int J Mol Sci. 2017;18(5).

    PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Seki K, Koshi R, Sugano N, Masutani S, Yoshinuma N, Ito K. Microarray analysis of bisphenol A-induced changes in gene expression in human oral epithelial cells. Acta biochimica et biophysica Sinica. 2007;39(11):879–84.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Whirledge S, Senbanjo LT, Cidlowski JA. Genistein disrupts glucocorticoid receptor signaling in human uterine endometrial Ishikawa cells. Environmental health perspectives. 2015;123(1):80–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Fic A, Mlakar SJ, Juvan P, Mlakar V, Marc J, Dolenc MS, et al. Genome-wide gene expression profiling of low-dose, long-term exposure of human osteosarcoma cells to bisphenol A and its analogs bisphenols AF and S. Toxicology in vitro : an international journal published in association with BIBRA. 2015;29(5):1060–9.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Kiyama R, Zhu Y. DNA microarray-based gene expression profiling of estrogenic chemicals. Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS. 2014;71(11):2065–82.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Yamaguchi M, Hankinson O. 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzopdioxin suppresses the growth of human colorectal cancer cells in vitro: implication of the aryl hydrocarbon receptor signaling. International journal of oncology. 2019;54(4):1422–32.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Yamaguchi M, Hankinson O. 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzopdioxin suppresses the growth of human liver cancer HepG2 cells in vitro: involvement of cell signaling factors. International journal of oncology. 2018;53(4):1657–66.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Milstone LM, LaVigne JF. 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin induces hyperplasia in confluent cultures of human keratinocytes. The Journal of investigative dermatology. 1984;82(5):532–4.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Heberle H, Meirelles GV, da Silva FR, Telles GP, Minghim R. InteractiVenn: a web-based tool for the analysis of sets through Venn diagrams. Bmc Bioinformatics. 2015;16.

  24. 24.

    Judson RS, Magpantay FM, Chickarmane V, Haskell C, Tania N, Taylor J, et al. Integrated model of chemical perturbations of a biological pathway using 18 in vitro high-throughput screening assays for the estrogen receptor. Toxicol Sci. 2015;148(1):137–54.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Jennen DG, Magkoufopoulou C, Ketelslegers HB, van Herwijnen MH, Kleinjans JC, van Delft JH. Comparison of HepG2 and HepaRG by whole-genome gene expression analysis for the purpose of chemical hazard identification. Toxicol Sci. 2010;115(1):66–79.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    De Abrew KN, Kainkaryam RM, Shan YK, Overmann GJ, Settivari RS, Wang X, et al. Grouping 34 chemicals based on mode of action using connectivity mapping. Toxicol Sci. 2016;151(2):447–61.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Celik L, Davey J, Lund D, Schiott B. Exploring interactions of endocrine-disrupting compounds with different conformations of the human estrogen receptor alpha ligand binding domain: a molecular docking study. Chem Res Toxicol. 2008;21(11):2195–206.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Blair RM, Fang H, Branham WS, Hass BS, Dial SL, Moland CL, et al. The estrogen receptor relative binding affinities of 188 natural and xenochemicals: structural diversity of ligands. Toxicol Sci. 2000;54(1):138–53.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Strunck E, Stemmann N, Hopert A, Wunsche W, Frank K, Vollmer G. Relative binding affinity does not predict biological response to xenoestrogens in rat endometrial adenocarcinoma cells. The Journal of steroid biochemistry and molecular biology. 2000;74(3):73–81.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Magkoufopoulou C, Claessen SM, Tsamou M, Jennen DG, Kleinjans JC, van Delft JH. A transcriptomics-based in vitro assay for predicting chemical genotoxicity in vivo. Carcinogenesis. 2012;33(7):1421–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Li Z, Cheng Z, Wang G, Hao X, Zhang L, Xu C. 6 Paths of ERK5 signaling pathway regulate hepatocyte proliferation in rat liver regeneration. Indian J Biochem Biophys. 2012;49(3):165–72.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Geisler F, Strazzabosco M. Emerging roles of Notch signaling in liver disease. Hepatology. 2015;61(1):382–92.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Rubtsova K, Marrack P, Rubtsov AV. Sexual dimorphism in autoimmunity. J Clin Invest. 2015;125(6):2187–93.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Mohammad I, Starskaia I, Nagy T, Guo J, Yatkin E, Vaananen K, et al. Estrogen receptor alpha contributes to T cell-mediated autoimmune inflammation by promoting T cell activation and proliferation. Sci Signal. 2018;11(526).

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Hevener AL, Zhou Z, Moore TM, Drew BG, Ribas V. The impact of ERalpha action on muscle metabolism and insulin sensitivity - strong enough for a man, made for a woman. Mol Metab. 2018;15:20–34.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Thompson C, Lucier GW. Hepatic estrogen responsiveness. Possible mechanisms for sexual dimorphism. Mol Pharmacol. 1983;24(1):69–76.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Bodin J, Bolling AK, Samuelsen M, Becher R, Lovik M, Nygaard UC. Long-term bisphenol A exposure accelerates insulitis development in diabetes-prone NOD mice. Immunopharmacol Immunotoxicol. 2013;35(3):349–58.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Luster MI, Faith RE, McLachlan JA. Alterations of the antibody response following in utero exposure to diethylstilbestrol. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol. 1978;20(4):433–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Marraudino M, Bonaldo B, Farinetti A, Panzica G, Ponti G, Gotti S. Metabolism disrupting chemicals and alteration of neuroendocrine circuits controlling food intake and energy metabolism. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2018;9:766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Gripon P, Rumin S, Urban S, Le Seyec J, Glaise D, Cannie I, et al. Infection of a human hepatoma cell line by hepatitis B virus. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002;99(24):15655–60.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Kuroda N, Kinoshita Y, Sun Y, Wada M, Kishikawa N, Nakashima K, et al. Measurement of bisphenol A levels in human blood serum and ascitic fluid by HPLC using a fluorescent labeling reagent. J Pharm Biomed Anal. 2003;30(6):1743–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Padberg F, Tarnow P, Luch A, Zellmer S. Minor structural modifications of bisphenol A strongly affect physiological responses of HepG2 cells. Arch Toxicol. 2019;93(6):1529–41.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Ye X, Bishop AM, Reidy JA, Needham LL, Calafat AM. Temporal stability of the conjugated species of bisphenol A, parabens, and other environmental phenols in human urine. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2007;17(6):567–72.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Liao C, Kannan K. Determination of free and conjugated forms of bisphenol A in human urine and serum by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Environ Sci Technol. 2012;46(9):5003–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Boucher JG, Boudreau A, Ahmed S, Atlas E. In vitro effects of bisphenol A beta-D-glucuronide (BPA-G) on adipogenesis in human and murine preadipocytes. Environmental health perspectives. 2015;123(12):1287–93.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Matthews JB, Twomey K, Zacharewski TR. In vitro and in vivo interactions of bisphenol A and its metabolite, bisphenol A glucuronide, with estrogen receptors alpha and beta. Chem Res Toxicol. 2001;14(2):149–57.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Weikum ER, Knuesel MT, Ortlund EA, Yamamoto KR. Glucocorticoid receptor control of transcription: precision and plasticity via allostery. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2017;18(3):159–74.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Wang J, Dai X, Berry LD, Cogan JD, Liu Q, Shyr Y. HACER: an atlas of human active enhancers to interpret regulatory variants. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019;47(D1):D106–D12.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Wang TT, Sathyamoorthy N, Phang JM. Molecular effects of genistein on estrogen receptor mediated pathways. Carcinogenesis. 1996;17(2):271–5.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Uhlen M, Fagerberg L, Hallstrom BM, Lindskog C, Oksvold P, Mardinoglu A, et al. Proteomics. Tissue-based map of the human proteome. Science (New York, NY). 2015;347(6220):1260419.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Akiyama T, Ishida J, Nakagawa S, Ogawara H, Watanabe S, Itoh N, et al. Genistein, a specific inhibitor of tyrosine-specific protein kinases. J Biol Chem. 1987;262(12):5592–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Gertz J, Savic D, Varley KE, Partridge EC, Safi A, Jain P, et al. Distinct properties of cell-type-specific and shared transcription factor binding sites. Mol Cell. 2013;52(1):25–36.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Joseph R, Orlov YL, Huss M, Sun W, Kong SL, Ukil L, et al. Integrative model of genomic factors for determining binding site selection by estrogen receptor-alpha. Mol Syst Biol. 2010;6:456.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Droog M, Mensink M, Zwart W. The estrogen receptor alpha-cistrome beyond breast cancer. Mol Endocrinol. 2016;30(10):1046–58.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Spitz F, Furlong EE. Transcription factors: from enhancer binding to developmental control. Nat Rev Genet. 2012;13(9):613–26.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Barkhem T, Carlsson B, Nilsson Y, Enmark E, Gustafsson J, Nilsson S. Differential response of estrogen receptor alpha and estrogen receptor beta to partial estrogen agonists/antagonists. Mol Pharmacol. 1998;54(1):105–12.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Ascenzi P, Bocedi A, Marino M. Structure-function relationship of estrogen receptor alpha and beta: impact on human health. Mol Aspects Med. 2006;27(4):299–402.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    McLachlan JA, Korach KS, Newbold RR, Degen GH. Diethylstilbestrol and other estrogens in the environment. Fundam Appl Toxicol. 1984;4(5):686–91.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Kuiper GG, Carlsson B, Grandien K, Enmark E, Haggblad J, Nilsson S, et al. Comparison of the ligand binding specificity and transcript tissue distribution of estrogen receptors alpha and beta. Endocrinology. 1997;138(3):863–70.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Leung YK, Mak P, Hassan S, Ho SM. Estrogen receptor (ER)-beta isoforms: a key to understanding ER-beta signaling. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006;103(35):13162–7.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Krishnan V, Porter W, Santostefano M, Wang X, Safe S. Molecular mechanism of inhibition of estrogen-induced cathepsin D gene expression by 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) in MCF-7 cells. Mol Cell Biol. 1995;15(12):6710–9.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Matthews J, Gustafsson JA. Estrogen receptor and aryl hydrocarbon receptor signaling pathways. Nucl Recept Signal. 2006;4:e016.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Takayanagi S, Tokunaga T, Liu X, Okada H, Matsushima A, Shimohigashi Y. Endocrine disruptor bisphenol A strongly binds to human estrogen-related receptor gamma (ERRgamma) with high constitutive activity. Toxicol Lett. 2006;167(2):95–105.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Suetsugi M, Su L, Karlsberg K, Yuan YC, Chen S. Flavone and isoflavone phytoestrogens are agonists of estrogen-related receptors. Mol Cancer Res. 2003;1(13):981–91.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Tremblay GB, Kunath T, Bergeron D, Lapointe L, Champigny C, Bader JA, et al. Diethylstilbestrol regulates trophoblast stem cell differentiation as a ligand of orphan nuclear receptor ERR beta. Genes Dev. 2001;15(7):833–8.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Straface E, Gambardella L, Brandani M, Malorni W. Sex differences at cellular level: “cells have a sex”. Handb Exp Pharmacol. 2012;214:49–65.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Lee SK. Sex as an important biological variable in biomedical research. BMB Rep. 2018;51(4):167–73.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Tannenbaum C, Greaves L, Graham ID. Why sex and gender matter in implementation research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;16(1):145.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Mennecozzi M, Landesmann B, Palosaari T, Harris G, Whelan M. Sex differences in liver toxicity-do female and male human primary hepatocytes react differently to toxicants in vitro? PLoS One. 2015;10(4):e0122786.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This research was supported by a National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIH/NIEHS) grant (R00 ES022983) and an Albert McKern Scholar Award to S.W.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

S.W. conceptualized the study. A.B., R.G.-M., and S.W. analyzed and interpreted gene expression data. A.B. and S.W. wrote the manuscript. All authors read, edited, and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shannon Whirledge.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Additional file 1:

Supplemental Data

Additional file 2:

Supplemental Figures

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Burman, A., Garcia-Milian, R. & Whirledge, S. Gene X environment: the cellular environment governs the transcriptional response to environmental chemicals. Hum Genomics 14, 19 (2020). https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s40246-020-00269-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Gene expression array
  • Gene ontology analysis
  • Environmental chemical
  • Gene-environment interaction
  • Xenoestrogen