| First Author | Pohjanvirta R | Year | 2012 |
| Journal | Toxicol Appl Pharmacol | Volume | 262 |
| Issue | 2 | Pages | 167-76 |
| PubMed ID | 22564538 | Mgi Jnum | J:186184 |
| Mgi Id | MGI:5431167 | Doi | 10.1016/j.taap.2012.04.032 |
| Citation | Pohjanvirta R, et al. (2012) Unexpected gender difference in sensitivity to the acute toxicity of dioxin in mice. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 262(2):167-76 |
| abstractText | The acute toxicity of the ubiquitous environmental contaminant 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) varies widely among species and strains. Previous studies in rats have established that females are approximately 2-fold more sensitive to TCDD lethality than males. However, there is a surprising gap in the literature regarding possible gender-related sensitivity differences in mice. In the present study, by using three substrains of TCDD-sensitive C57BL/6 mice and transgenic mice on this background, we demonstrated that: 1) in contrast to the situation in rats, female mice are the more resistant gender; 2) the magnitude of the divergence between male and female mice depends on the substrain, but can amount to over 10-fold; 3) AH receptor protein expression levels or mutations in the primary structure of this receptor are not involved in the resistance of female mice of a C57BL/6 substrain, despite their acute LD(5)(0) for TCDD being over 5000 mug/kg; 4) transgenic mice that globally express the rat wildtype AH receptor follow the mouse type of gender difference; 5) in gonadectomized mice, ovarian estrogens appear to enhance TCDD resistance, whereas testicular androgens seem to augment TCDD susceptibility; and 6) the gender difference correlates best with the severity of liver damage, which is also reflected in hepatic histopathology and the expression of pro-inflammatory cytokines, especially IL-6. Hence, the two closely related rodent species most often employed in toxicological risk characterization studies, rat and mouse, represent opposite examples of the influence of gender on dioxin sensitivity, further complicating the risk assessment of halogenated aromatic hydrocarbons. |
