Editorial: Xenosensors as the targets of endocrine-disrupting chemicals

Editorial on the Research Topic
Xenosensors as the targets of endocrine-disrupting chemicals

Endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) are exogenous substances in the living system known as xenobiotics that imitate the authentic ligands of endocrine receptors and affect the function of the endocrine system, potentially causing health problems. These compounds encompass a wide range of synthetic and natural chemicals, including pesticides, pharmaceuticals, plastic additives, and phytochemicals. Exposure to xenobiotic compounds may elicit several responses at the cellular level, ranging from signaling and adaptation to cell death. These compounds bind to various cellular proteins, which can lead to activation or inhibition of molecular responses that trigger biosynthesis, metabolism, transport, elimination, or binding to various receptors that may cause harmful effects. EDCs can be defined as xenobiotics that can mimic hormones, interfere with endogenous hormone receptors, and disrupt the normal function of the endocrine system. Generally, these compounds are lipophilic and can attach to lipids and accumulate in tissues more than other xenobiotics. A variety of cellular receptors that are responsive to xenobiotics, including EDCs, are termed xenobiotic receptors or xenosensors (1–3).

Xenosensors interact with absorbed xenobiotics and upregulate the transcription of genes encoding xenobiotic-metabolizing enzymes. This enzymatic machinery protects cells and organs by eliminating foreign compounds. The metabolization and elimination occur through different reactions, traditionally classified into three stages. The first stage, Phase I, includes reactions that increase the hydrophilicity of lipophilic xenobiotics like EDCs and prepare them for conjugation reactions in Phase II. Conjugating enzymes transform the metabolites from phase I and unchanged xenobiotics into more polar compounds that can be eliminated in the next stage. Phase III enzymes bind to conjugated metabolites and transport them to bile and urine to be excreted from the body (2). Therefore, xenosensors are considered structures targeted by xenobiotics, including EDCs, that trigger a defensive response of the body at the cellular level. These receptors possess a broad sensitivity to different foreign compounds, including EDCs, and each compound can be detected by several xenosensors (4).

Generally, xenosensors are classified into four classes: Aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR), Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor (PPAR), Constructive androstane receptor (CAR), and Pregnane X receptor (PXR) (5). Further to these receptors, some hormone receptors such as estrogen receptors (ER), estrogen-related receptor (ERR), androgen receptor (AR), and thyroid receptor (TR) have demonstrated activity as xenosensors. Further studies may lead to identifying more nuclear and hormone receptors like the glucocorticoid receptor (GR) and the farnesoid X receptor (FXR), as targets of EDCs (6).

Investigations into gene expression alterations in cells during exposure to EDCs could be advantageous to clarify the role of targeted xenosensors and related pathways as well as identify downstream target proteins that can be applied as biomarkers for detecting body exposure to related EDCs and exploring new EDCs (7).

Alva-Gallegos et al. studied ERα-related mRNA and protein expression in a breast cancer cell line exposed to 22 compounds and showed that 7 small phenolic compounds (3-methylcatechol,4,5-dichlorocatechol, 3,5- dichlorocatechol, 4- fluorocatechol, 4-nitrocatechol, 4- ethylguaiacol, and 4-chlorocatechol) interfere with ER and can be considered potential endocrine disruptors. Another catechol compound, 4-chloropyrocatechol, exhibited partial effects on ER in this study.

Brown et al. performed an integration of various preclinical models (in-silico, in vitro, and in vivo experiments) to reveal the endocrine-disrupting effect of cannabidiol, one of the main phytochemicals of cannabis. The computational docking method and site-directed mutagenesis assay showed suggestions of interactions between cannabidiol and PXR. In vitro experiments defined cannabidiol as a selective agonist of PXR, particularly in humans. According to the in vivo experiments, exposure to cannabidiol in mice activated PXR signaling, leading to higher cholesterol uptake by intestinal cells and elevated plasma cholesterol levels.

Pan et al. reviewed the adverse effects of the ubiquitous EDCs on reproductive system health. The underlying mechanisms and pathways of EDCs’ impact on reproductive organs, including receptor-mediated mechanisms, were provided comprehensively. The authors summarized the existing knowledge on the EDCs’ disruptive effects on reproductive disorders and cancers as well as the weakness of evidence for a definitive explanation.

CARs function as potential targets for ECDs and their metabolization has been explored by (De Battistis et al.). In this study, the authors introduced CARs as the main modulator of lipids and their key role in the mechanism of EDCs toxicity and metabolic syndrome, although they have suggested more research is needed to clarify their mechanisms thoroughly. Moreover, they have recommended more studies, particularly systematic reviews, to fill the gaps in the relationship between CARs and the adverse effects of EDCs.

Author contributions

NG: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing. FK: Writing – review & editing. ZB: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.

Acknowledgments

We appreciate all authors, reviewers, and journal editors who have contributed to this Research Topic.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Generative AI statement

The authors declare that no Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

1. Ahn C, Jeung E-B. Endocrine-disrupting chemicals and disease endpoints. Int J Mol Sci. (2023) 24:5342. doi: 10.3390/ijms24065342

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

2. Croom E. Metabolism of xenobiotics of human environments. Prog Mol Biol Transl Sci. (2012) 112:31–88. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-415813-9.00003-9

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

3. Lin J-Y, Yin R-X. Exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals and type 2 diabetes mellitus in later life. Exposure Health. (2023) 15:199–229. doi: 10.1007/s12403-022-00486-0

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

4. Klotz LO, Steinbrenner H. Cellular adaptation to xenobiotics: Interplay between xenosensors, reactive oxygen species and FOXO transcription factors. Redox Biol. (2017) 13:646–54. doi: 10.1016/j.redox.2017.07.015

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

5. Che D, Farouk MH, El-Razek IA, Seidu A, Ekuful NE, Qin G, et al. How can xenosensors act in chemical detoxification metabolism? Curr Protein Pept Sci. (2019) 20:172–83. doi: 10.2174/1389203719666180514144955

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

6. Chambon P. The nuclear receptor superfamily: a personal retrospect on the first two decades. Mol Endocrinol. (2005) 19:1418–28. doi: 10.1210/me.2005-0125

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

7. Baldwin WS. Phase 0 of the xenobiotic response: nuclear receptors and other transcription factors as a first step in protection from xenobiotics. Nucl Receptor Res. (2019) 6:1–17. doi: 10.32527/2019/101447

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar