Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Environmental Health Perspectives logoLink to Environmental Health Perspectives
. 2001 Aug;109(8):785–794. doi: 10.1289/ehp.01109785

The OECD program to validate the rat uterotrophic bioassay to screen compounds for in vivo estrogenic responses: phase 1.

J Kanno 1, L Onyon 1, J Haseman 1, P Fenner-Crisp 1, J Ashby 1, W Owens 1; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development1
PMCID: PMC1240405  PMID: 11564613

Abstract

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has completed the first phase of an international validation program for the rodent uterotrophic bioassay. This uterotrophic bioassay is intended to identify the in vivo activity of compounds that are suspected agonists or antagonists of estrogen. This information could, for example, be used to help prioritize positive compounds for further testing. Using draft protocols, we tested and compared two model systems, the immature female rat and the adult ovariectomized rat. Data from 19 participating laboratories using a high-potency reference agonist, ethinyl estradiol (EE), and an antagonist, ZM 189,154, indicate no substantive performance differences between models. All laboratories and all protocols successfully detected increases in uterine weights using EE in phase 1. These significant uterine weight increases were achieved under a variety of experimental conditions (e.g., strain, diet, housing protocol, bedding, vehicle). For each protocol, there was generally good agreement among laboratories with regard to the actual EE doses both in producing the first significant increase in uterine weights and achieving the maximum uterine response. Furthermore, the Hill equation appears to model the dose response satisfactorily and indicates general agreement based on calculated effective dose (ED)(10) and ED(50) within and among laboratories. The feasibility of an antagonist assay was also successfully demonstrated. Therefore, both models appear robust, reproducible, and transferable across laboratories for high-potency estrogen agonists such as EE. For the next phase of the OECD validation program, both models will be tested against a battery of weak, partial estrogen agonists.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (120.6 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Ashby J., Tinwell H. Uterotrophic activity of bisphenol A in the immature rat. Environ Health Perspect. 1998 Nov;106(11):719–720. doi: 10.1289/ehp.98106719. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Boettger-Tong H., Murthy L., Chiappetta C., Kirkland J. L., Goodwin B., Adlercreutz H., Stancel G. M., Mäkelä S. A case of a laboratory animal feed with high estrogenic activity and its impact on in vivo responses to exogenously administered estrogens. Environ Health Perspect. 1998 Jul;106(7):369–373. doi: 10.1289/ehp.98106369. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bülbring E., Burn J. H. The estimation of oestrin and of male hormone in oily solution. J Physiol. 1935 Nov 22;85(3):320–333. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1935.sp003321. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Christian M. S., Hoberman A. M., Bachmann S., Hellwig J. Variability in the uterotrophic response assay (an in vivo estrogenic response assay) in untreated control and positive control (DES-DP, 2.5 microG/kg, bid) Wistar and Sprague-Dawley rats. Drug Chem Toxicol. 1998;21 (Suppl 1):51–100. doi: 10.3109/01480549809007404. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Crisp T. M., Clegg E. D., Cooper R. L., Wood W. P., Anderson D. G., Baetcke K. P., Hoffmann J. L., Morrow M. S., Rodier D. J., Schaeffer J. E. Environmental endocrine disruption: an effects assessment and analysis. Environ Health Perspect. 1998 Feb;106 (Suppl 1):11–56. doi: 10.1289/ehp.98106s111. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Dukes M., Chester R., Yarwood L., Wakeling A. E. Effects of a non-steroidal pure antioestrogen, ZM 189,154, on oestrogen target organs of the rat including bones. J Endocrinol. 1994 May;141(2):335–341. doi: 10.1677/joe.0.1410335. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Odum J., Lefevre P. A., Tittensor S., Paton D., Routledge E. J., Beresford N. A., Sumpter J. P., Ashby J. The rodent uterotrophic assay: critical protocol features, studies with nonyl phenols, and comparison with a yeast estrogenicity assay. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 1997 Apr;25(2):176–188. doi: 10.1006/rtph.1997.1100. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Reel J. R., Lamb IV J. C., Neal B. H. Survey and assessment of mammalian estrogen biological assays for hazard characterization. Fundam Appl Toxicol. 1996 Dec;34(2):288–305. doi: 10.1006/faat.1996.0198. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Thigpen J. E., Li L. A., Richter C. B., Lebetkin E. H., Jameson C. W. The mouse bioassay for the detection of estrogenic activity in rodent diets: I. A standardized method for conducting the mouse bioassay. Lab Anim Sci. 1987 Oct;37(5):596–601. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Wakeling A. E., Slater S. R. Estrogen-receptor binding and biologic activity of tamoxifen and its metabolites. Cancer Treat Rep. 1980 Jun-Jul;64(6-7):741–744. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. ZARROW M. X., LAZO-WASEM E. A., SHOGER R. L. Estrogenic activity in a commercial animal ration. Science. 1953 Nov 27;118(3074):650–651. doi: 10.1126/science.118.3074.650-a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Environmental Health Perspectives are provided here courtesy of National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

RESOURCES