Evaluation of the Estrogenic/Antiestrogenic Activities of Perfluoroalkyl Substances and Their Interactions with the Human Estrogen Receptor by Combining In Vitro Assays and In Silico Modeling

Juan Li,Huiming Cao,Hongru Feng,Qiao Xue,Aiqian Zhang,Jianjie Fu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c03468

2020-10-28

Abstract:The potential estrogenic activities of perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) are controversial. Here, we investigated the estrogenic/antiestrogenic activities of PFASs and explored the corresponding interaction mode of PFASs with the estrogen receptor (ER) by combining <i>in vitro</i> assays and <i>in silico</i> modeling. We found that three PFASs (perfluorobutanoic acid, perfluorobutane sulfonate, and perfluoropentanoic acid) exerted antiestrogenic effects by inhibiting luciferase activity, whereas perfluorohexane sulfonate (PFHxS) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) exerted estrogenic effects by inducing luciferase activity. When coexposed to 17β-estradiol (E2), all tested PFASs attenuated the E2-stimulated luciferase activity; unexpectedly, each PFAS could further attenuate the luciferase activity generated by the cotreatment with ICI 182,780 and E2, with a minimal effective concentration comparable to that found in human serum. PFHxS and PFOS significantly induced the gene expression of <i>TFF1</i>; additionally, all PFASs inhibited the E2-induced gene expression of <i>TFF1</i> and <i>EGR3</i>. Furthermore, the results of the blind docking analyses suggested that the interaction with the coactivator-binding region on the ER surface should be included as a pathway through which PFASs exert estrogenic and antiestrogenic activities. Finally, we revealed the critical molecular property of the zero-order molecular connectivity index (MCI) (⁰χ) that affects the antiestrogenic activity of PFASs.The Supporting Information is available free of charge at <a class="ext-link" href="/doi/10.1021/acs.est.0c03468?goto=supporting-info">https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.0c03468</a>.Structures of tested chemicals (Table S1); concentrations of PFASs in exposure solutions (Table S2); binding free energy components of E2 and PFOS in the ER–E2–PFOS complex (Table S3); compounds, parameters, and activity data (Table S4); RNA isolation and reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) (part 1); <i>in silico</i> computational model (part 2); concentration–response luciferase activity of PFASs that gave a minor response in the MVLN assay (Figure S1); ERE-luciferase assay of PFASs in MVLN cells after cotreatment with E2 and ICI 182,780 (Figure S2); binding modes of 10 PFASs molecules in HIP molecular modeling (Figure S3); binding modes of 10 PFASs molecules in HIE molecular modeling (Figure S4); RMSD changes in MD simulations (Figure S5); and empirical distribution of <i>R</i>^2* for the pEC50 model (Figure S6) (<a class="ext-link" href="/doi/suppl/10.1021/acs.est.0c03468/suppl_file/es0c03468_si_001.pdf">PDF</a>)This article has not yet been cited by other publications.

environmental sciences,engineering, environmental