Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2011 Oct 15.
Published in final edited form as: Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2010 Aug 1;248(2):111–121. doi: 10.1016/j.taap.2010.07.014

Fig. 5.

Fig. 5

Epigenetic reactivation of ERα-mediated LAMP3 repression in MCF-7. (A) MCF-7 were treated with DAC (1 μM), TSA (1 μM) and/or ERα antagonist, ICI182780 (ICI, 1 μM) 6 hr before E2 stimulation. Total RNA was subjected to RT-qPCR analysis. 36B4 was used as internal control. Mean ± SD; **, P < 0.01, ***, P < 0.001 compared with DMSO treated control (lane 1–4), E2 treated alone (lane 5–8), and ICI+E2 alone (lane 9–12). #, P < 0.001 compared lane 5 (E2 treatment) with lane 1 (DMSO). (B) Mammospheres were exposed to E2 (70 nM), diethylstilbestrol (DES, 70 nM), daidzein (10 μM), 1,3,5-tris(4-hydroxyphenyl)-4-propyl-1H-pyrazole (PPT, 0.1 nM), 4-nonylphenol (NP, 1 μM), N-butyl-benzyl phthalate (BBP, 10 μM), di(2-ethylhexyl)-phthalate (DEHP, 10 μM), and 4,4′-dichloro-biphnyl (PCB, 0.1 nM) for 3 weeks. After the exposure, the MDECs were subjected to RT-qPCR analysis for LAMP3 expression. Mean ± SD; ***, P < 0.001 compared with DMSO treated control. ##, P < 0.01, ###, P < 0.001 compared with BPA treated sample.