Open Access

Commentary

Chemical Communication via Signaling Top

Chemical communication is a common means of endogenous and exogenous signaling for countless species. The endocrine system of vertebrates consists of an intricate web of agonistic as well as antagonistic hormone signals, which control sexual development and reproduction (McLachlan 2001). For example, circulating hormones such as 17ß-estradiol (E₂) control a variety of cellular processes, including developmental cues, differentiation events, and growth in organs such as breast, ovary, and uterus. The timing and concentration of estrogen signaling determine sexual maturity, ovulation, and pregnancy. In much the same way, a multitude of organisms rely on chemical cues for development and differentiation. For example, some insects and crustaceans rely on ecdysteroids to signal molting and growth (Oberdorster et al. 2001), and the slime mold Dictyostelium relies on a chlorinated alkyl phenone called DIF-1 to signal individual cells to differentiate into a multicellular sporulating stalk (Kay 1998; Town et al. 1976).

Plants produce versatile chemical signals, called phytochemicals or phytoestrogens, which serve both as endogenous signals, triggering color and scent production within the plant, and exogenous signals secreted for communication with other organisms, such as to inhibit sexual reproduction of predatory herbivores (Wynne-Edwards 2001). Leguminous plants (soybeans, clover, and alfalfa) secrete phytoestrogens into the soil as recruitment signals for symbiotic mycorrhizal fungi and Rhizobium soil bacteria, which both provide selective growth advantages to the host plant, including increased water/phosphate availability and nitrogenous fertilizer, respectively (Baker 1998; Kuiper et al. 1997; Peters et al. 1986). Although phytoestrogens serve specific signaling functions between the plants that produce them and insects, fungi, and bacteria, many chemical signals, including the fungal agent zearalenone and the phytoestrogens genistein and luteolin, are often "misinterpreted" as estrogenic signals in nontarget organisms such as vertebrates.

For chemical communication to occur within or between organisms, a receptor must have affinity for specific chemical ligands or signals, and this recognition must initiate a response. In fact, a wide variety of natural and synthetic chemicals exist in the environment that mimic hormones and disrupt endocrine signaling in vertebrates through interaction with various nuclear receptors and signal transducer proteins, including the estrogen receptor (ER), orphan receptors, and the thyroid receptor (Cheek et al. 1998; Crump et al. 2002; Ishihara et al. 2003; McLachlan 2001; Moriyama et al. 2002; Takeshita et al. 2001). Some flavonoid phytoestrogens are able to bind ER-ɑ and ER-ß and act as weak agonists (Collins-Burow et al. 2000) that compete with endogenous E₂ for ER binding and activation of estrogen-responsive genes (Blair et al. 2000; Kuiper et al. 1997). Despite their ability to bind these receptors, phytoestrogens exhibit only a fraction (10^-2-10^-3) of the estrogenic activity of E₂ (Collins-Burow et al. 2000). Nevertheless, the most active phytoestrogens found in plants have been shown to induce breast cancer cell proliferation in vitro as well as influence the in vivo endocrine function of experimental animals and livestock that consume high quantities of these phytoestrogen-laden plants (Bennetts et al. 1946; Facemire et al. 1995; Whitten and Patisaul 2001; Zava et al. 1997). The mechanism of action is defined by vertebrate ERs, which bind phytoestrogen ligands, endogenous ligands, and endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) with specific affinity. Similarly, nodulation D protein (NodD) receptors in Rhizobium soil bacteria recognize phytoestrogens as recruitment signals to initiate nitrogen-fixing symbiosis. The specific affinity for and recognition of similar natural and synthetic ligands by receptors such as ER and NodD provide an example of shared or analogous functionality (Fox et al. 2001, ²⁰⁰⁴).

In an evolutionary context, it may seem odd that phytochemical signals, produced by plants as recruiting signals for symbiotic soil bacteria, are intercepted by humans and affect estrogenic signaling by binding to ERs and influencing estrogen-responsive gene expression. Both plants and humans have the ability to synthesize steroids, and plants express proteins that are homologous in sequence and identical in function to human 5ɑ-reductase enzymes, in that they both catalyze the reduction of steroid substrates (Li et al. 1997). Nevertheless, how is it that plants and humans, two organisms known to be derived from separate lineages (Meyerowitz 2002), both share the ability to produce and recognize steroid signals? After all, there are no ERs in plants or in their most common partners, insects. However, one intended target of phytoestrogen signaling, Rhizobium soil bacteria, does express ligand-dependent transcriptional activator proteins/receptors, called NodD proteins, which have been reported to share genetic homology with the human ER (Gyorgypal and Kondorosi 1991; Long 1989). In addition, some Nod proteins have been shown to share significant sequence homology with human steroid biochemical intermediates (Baker 1989, 1991).

Recent genetic sequence analysis has shown no significant nucleotide level homology between rhizobial NodD and human ER genes. Nevertheless, these two evolutionarily distant receptors both recognize and respond to a shared group of chemical signals and ligands, including both agonists and antagonists. A lack of homology at the nucleotide level does not preclude the possibility that NodD and ER are receptors with analogous signaling functions. In fact, recent advances in X-ray crystallography have helped uncover many examples of proteins that share little or no nucleotide level homology and yet, when crystallized, have been shown to share significant homology in three-dimensional protein folding, domains, and structural characteristics (Benner et al. 2000; Lai et al. 2000; Rives and Galitski 2003; Suel et al. 2003). The emerging proteomics field is based on the principle that the structural characteristics of proteins are more telling determinants of a protein's function and evolutionary origin than is simple nucleotide-level homology (Koonin et al. 2002; Meyerowitz 2002; Todd et al. 2001). Although the crystal structure of the NodD protein has not yet been solved, based on the similar ligand-binding profiles (both natural and synthetic ligands) and DNA-binding ability of NodD and ER, these two proteins may share some degree of structural identity.

Although they share no common evolutionary ancestor, NodD and ER recognize and respond to a similar profile of chemical signals found in the environment. Convergent evolution may explain the shared ligand recognition properties common to both ER and NodD proteins. Convergent evolution is demonstrated when two species that do not share a common ancestor exhibit similar traits that have arisen, through natural selection, as adaptations to similar ecologic and environmental conditions or signals (Thompson 1999). I contend that NodD and ER may have separately evolved, in lineages leading to Rhizobium bacteria and vertebrates, to adapt to the presence of natural estrogenic ligands, such as those produced by vertebrates, fungi, and plants (phytoestrogens). Recent evolutionary analysis has found that some invertebrates express an ER, and phylogenetic analysis of these sequences has demonstrated that the ER is the earliest ancestral receptor of the entire steroid receptor family (Thornton 2001; Thornton et al. 2003). Conversely, the endogenous natural ligand for ER, E₂, is the terminal product of the steroid biochemical pathway. Therefore, when compared on an evolutionary time scale, the ER may have arisen long before its endogenous ligand, E₂, was produced. In this absence of E₂, ancestral ERs may yet have functioned as receptors for exogenous/environmental signals. At the time of the evolutionary emergence of the ER, organisms such as insects, fungi, bacteria, and plants existed and may have been actively producing chemical signals that served, then as they do today, as potent ER ligands. These environmental signals may have included a wide variety of phytoestrogens, including those that signal through rhizobial NodD receptors to initiate symbiosis.

In addition to having specific affinity for and being activated by many of the same ligands and phytoestrogens, vertebrate ER proteins and rhizobial NodD proteins can also be affected by many of the same environmental cues and ligands. ER and NodD both require chaperone proteins, hsp70 and GroESL, respectively, for proper folding and full activation of transcription (Cheung and Smith 2000; Nair et al. 1996; Takayama and Reed 2001; Yeh et al. 2002). Specific ligand binding to ER and NodD results in either activation or inhibition of responsive gene transcription; therefore, both receptors exhibit ligand-concentration-dependent activity. Moreover, ligand binding to ER and NodD results in both receptors binding to highly conserved consensus sequences of DNA, the estrogen response element and the Nod box, respectively, in the promoter regions of responsive genes. ER- or NodD-induced transcription of responsive genes is responsible for growth and differentiation events (Fisher and Long 1993; Katzenellenbogen et al. 2000; McLachlan 2001; van Rhijn and Vanderleyden 1995). ER can also be activated in a ligand-independent manner via cross-talk with growth factor signaling pathways (Bjornstrom and Sjoberg 2002; Frigo et al. 2002; Klotz et al. 2002). For example, ER can be activated via mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) phosphorylation cascade members (Weinstein-Oppenheimer et al. 2002; Weldon et al. 2002). Interestingly, a member of the MAPK eukaryotic signal transduction pathway, Raf (MAPK kinase) protein, has a homologous protein in plants that also functions in signal transduction of the plant hormone ethylene (Clark et al. 1998). ER's ability to signal in the absence of ligand and be influenced by multiple signal transduction pathways, as well as ER's promiscuous binding of an array of environmental compounds, has led to hypotheses that the original signaling function of ER may have been as a receiver and translator of many varied environmental signals and cues.

On the basis of the functional similarities listed above and their shared affinity for similar chemical signals, I propose that the evolutionarily distinct ER and NodD receptors are functionally analogous in their response to and mediation of chemical signaling. Therefore, it follows that both of these signaling systems are vulnerable to disruption by EDCs present in their shared environment.

Disruption of Chemical Communication by Natural and Synthetic EDCs Top

Initial studies (Fox et al. 2001), as well as the expanded studies (Fox et al. 2004), have shown that signaling via both ER and NodD receptors is adversely affected by a similar profile of EDCs at environmentally relevant concentrations. The original hypothesis--that phytoestrogens and EDCs that disrupt E₂-ER signaling in mammalian cells (Blair et al. 2000; Danzo 1997) will similarly disrupt symbiotic phytoestrogen-NodD signaling--has led to testing of more than 80 natural and synthetic environmental compounds, at a wide range of concentrations, for agonist and antagonist effects on phytoestrogen-NodD signaling. Environmental compounds, including phytoestrogens, fungal chemicals, insecticides, herbicides, plasticizers, polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), were chosen because of their ability to disrupt endocrine signaling in vertebrates, humans, and exposed wildlife as reported in numerous scientific reports over the past 60 years (Bennetts et al. 1946; Bitman et al. 1968; Guillette 2000; Korach et al. 1979; McLachlan et al. 1984; Nelson 1974). EDCs were tested for disruption of NodD signaling by measuring effects of EDCs on phytoestrogen-induced NodD-responsive reporter gene expression (Table 1).

Table 1.

In the presence of 1 µM luteolin inducer, NodD activates the transcription of a number of nodulation (nod) genes. To measure antagonist effects of EDCs, I added increasing concentrations of each EDC (insecticides, herbicides, plasticizers, PCBs, PAHs, synthetic and natural hormones, and phytochemicals) in the presence of 1 µM luteolin and quantified the effects of EDCs on expression of a responsive nod gene fused to a lacZ reporter gene. The maximum inhibition (I_max) of nod gene expression was quantified for each EDC tested (Table 1). The natural NodD ligand luteolin was set as 100% potency (++++). Each EDC tested was ranked in order of the percent inhibition of nod gene activation (relative percent potency): 1-25% (+), 25-50% (++), 50-75% (+++), 75-100% (++++), and above 100% (+++++). Similarly, potency data were pooled from the literature for many of the EDCs tested in this study regarding potency with which each EDC caused disruption (either agonist or antagonist) of signaling through ER (Coldham et al. 1997; Collins-Burow et al. 2000; Kuiper et al. 1997; Petit et al. 1997; Sheeler et al. 2000; Zava et al. 1997). The natural ER ligand E₂ was set as 100% potency for ER signaling, and EDCs were ranked in order of most potent disruption of E₂-ER signaling. Potency data for each EDC in the NodD and ER signaling systems are reported in Table 1 and Figure 1.

Figure 1.

EDC disruption of vertebrate ER and Rhizobium NodD signaling shown as the relative potency of each EDC for ER-ɑ (A) and ER-ß (B) compared with NodD. Relative potencies in disrupting signaling were taken from the literature for each EDC for ER (Coldham et al. 1997; Collins-Burow et al. 2000; Kuiper et al. 1997; Petit et al. 1997; Sheeler et al. 2000; Zava et al. 1997) and NodD (Fox et al. 2001, 2004). The potency profile of each EDC is expressed as a relative value compared with the natural ligand (set as 100% potency), either E₂ for ER or luteolin for NodD. Abbreviations: 2,4-D, 2;4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid; 2,4,5-T, 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid; 4-OH Stil, 4-OH-stilbene; Alach, alachlor; Api, apigenin; bbph, benzylbutylphthalate; BPA, bisphenol A; Carbo, carbofuran; Chry, chrysin; Coum, coumestrol; Daid, daidzein; DDE, dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene; DDT, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane; Diel, dieldrin; EnS, endosulfan sulfate; EPTC, S-ethyl dipropylthiocarbamate; Gen, genistein; ICI, ICI 182,780; kaem, kaempferol; Lin, lindane; Lut, luteolin; MPT, methyl parathion; Mxy, methyoxychlor; PCP, pentachlorophenol; Prog, progesterone; Q, quadrant; Test, testosterone; tOP, tert-octylphenol; Tri, trifluralin; Zea, zearalenone.

For comparative analysis of NodD-disruption data (Fox et al. 2001, 2003), I ranked the potency with which each EDC disrupted phytoestrogen-NodD signaling. This EDC "potency profile" was used to construct the x-axis of Figure 1. In order to create a comparable "potency profile" of EDCs that affect ER signaling, I pooled data from the existing body of scientific literature concerning the effects of phytoestrogens and EDCs on ER signaling (Coldham et al. 1997; Collins-Burow et al. 2000; Kuiper et al. 1997; Petit et al. 1997; Sheeler et al. 2000; Zava et al. 1997) and used these data to create the y-axis of Figure 1. This allowed me to compose a "potency profile" for each EDC, ranking the relative amount of disruption to both ER-mediated and NodD-mediated signaling.

By graphing the potency data for all EDCs tested, ranking relative effects on either estrogenic (y-axis) or symbiotic (x-axis) signaling, I determined four different categories of EDCs (Figure 1). The largest category in number consists of EDCs that are not potent effectors of either ER or NodD signaling (quadrant 4), whereas the two smallest categories consist of EDCs that are potent signal disruptors of either only ER signaling (quadrant 1) or only NodD signaling (quadrant 3) (Figure 1). Finally, quadrant 2 contains EDCs that are potent disruptors of both ER and NodD signaling; this quadrant illustrates that ligand affinity and signaling properties are often shared in common between estrogenic and symbiotic signaling (Figure 1). The category of shared disruptors was primarily composed of phytoestrogens or plant-derived compounds such as stilbenes. Interestingly, all of the stilbenes and bisphenolic compounds tested fall into this shared disruptor category. The predominance of phytoestrogens as potent agents for ER and NodD signaling further supports the theory that an evolutionarily ancient or ancestral ER may have recognized and responded to phytoestrogens even before the emergence of the natural endogenous ligand E₂.

The few synthetic EDCs found to be potent disruptors of both ER and NodD signaling include the estrogenic plastics by-product and surfactant bisphenol A and the pharmaceutical estrogen diethylstilbestrol (DES). Both bisphenol A and DES are among the earliest synthesized pharmaceutical estrogens (Dodds and Lawson 1936; Dodds et al. 1938). In fact, DES is a stilbestrol derivative whose core structure is that of the plant product stilbene, of which 4-OH-stilbene was also found to be an active disruptor of ER and NodD signaling. Other studies have indicated that this very same group of compounds--stilbenes, bisphenol A, and DES--are not only potent estrogens but also inhibitors of microtubule polymerization (Metzler and Pfeiffer 1995). Many of the phytochemicals found to be disruptors of ER and NodD signaling are themselves signaling molecules produced by soybeans and clover to signal to and recruit their own specific symbiotic strains of rhizobia and mycorrhiza. One may hypothesize that these related phytochemical-symbiont signaling webs may also be potential targets of disruption by EDCs found in the environment. I have identified fundamental similarities in the profile of EDCs that disrupt phytochemical-NodD symbiotic signaling and E₂-ER hormone signaling, further supporting the theory of an evolutionary convergence of chemical communication pathways (Baker 1992b; Wynne-Edwards 2001). Therefore, it is probable that EDCs and other phenolic ring substitution compounds, which disrupt NodD symbiotic signal and ER signaling, may be capable of disrupting a much broader web of signaling than had previously been considered (Firmin et al. 1986; Djordjevic et al. 1987; Peters and Long 1988). I have used the same reasoning that has been applied to studying the effects of EDCs in vertebrates and have found parallels between the profile of EDCs and the effects on endogenous signaling in the plant-rhizobial system. In addition, the chemicals tested are commonly found in the soil environment in concentrations comparable with those used in other assays, and a lower level of nod gene expression may result in reduced symbiotic signaling.

Although endocrine disruption studies in vertebrates have been criticized for exceeding the range of environmentally relevant concentrations of EDCs, there is no question that EDCs are abundantly used and found in the same environment as NodD-phytoestrogen signaling. Rhizobium are ubiquitous in the soil environment of agricultural regions in the first 10 in. below ground. EDCs, such as organochlorine pesticides, are applied in amounts measured in tons to the very agricultural fields in which this new "target" of endocrine disruption exists. Significant residual levels of EDCs, such as DDT, can be measured 20 years after spraying in micromolar or parts-per-billion concentrations (Aigner et al. 1998; Mitra and Raghu 1998). Therefore, depending on the timing of pesticide application, it is probable that phytochemicals produced by host plants are competing with micromolar or millimolar concentrations of active endocrine disruptors for signaling to NodD receptors in soil bacteria. Recent studies of crops that rely on nitrogen-fixing symbiosis in agricultural areas with heavy pesticide use have reported stunted plant growth and reduced mycorrhiza and rhizobia symbiosis (Abd-Alla et al. 2000), mirroring the effects predicted by in vitro laboratory studies (Fox et al. 2001, 2004). These data identify a novel target of EDCs, the chemical communication between two organisms, which mediates symbiosis. Furthermore, in vitro laboratory results showing EDC inhibition of the symbiotic signaling system necessary for recruitment of nitrogen-fixing bacteria to plants for symbiosis (Fox et al. 2001, 2004) may indicate the mechanism behind deleterious effects reported in the field.

Implications Top

Phenotypic evidence of endocrine disruption commonly observed when vertebrates are exposed to high concentrations of organochlorine pesticides and pollutants include feminization of fish, reduced phallus size of reptiles, decreased mating ability in mammals, reduced fertility and viability in a variety of species, and disruption of E₂ signaling to ERs (Bennetts et al. 1946; Danzo 1997; Facemire et al. 1995; McLachlan 2001; Tyler et al. 1998). ER homologues have been found in species as evolutionarily distant as invertebrates and humans (Thornton 2001; Thornton et al. 2003). In addition, many homologues of human signaling pathway members (Bolduc et al. 2003; Stracke et al. 2002), including estrogen-like receptors, have been identified in plants (Milanesi et al. 2001) and, as discussed here, may have analogous receptors in Rhizobium bacteria. Meanwhile, most research on endocrine disruption has focused on what effects EDCs and phytoestrogens have on hormone signaling in humans and wildlife, but the evolutionary targets of phytoestrogen signaling, namely, symbiotic soil bacteria, had been overlooked as a target of EDCs. Communication via hormone signaling is subject to cross-talk and disruption by both natural and synthetic environmental chemical signals, which are communicated to all organisms residing in a shared ecosystem.

Phytoestrogen signaling is a prime example of signal cross-talk found in the environment. Phytoestrogens, produced as recruitment signals for symbiotic soil bacteria, are recognized as hormone signals by some herbivores resulting in reduced fecundity (Wynne-Edwards 2001). In addition, these same phytoestrogens may be responsible for hormone alterations in humans that lead to reduced risk of hormone-dependent cancers (Zava and Duwe 1997). This example illustrates how a hormone signal, released into the environment for the sole purpose of communicating with a receptor in a target organism, may have unintentional consequences as a hormone signal that communicates to any and all nontarget organisms with analogous signal receptors. In most studies involving environmental estrogens, the receptor of endocrine-disrupting signals has been identified as the ER. The limitation to operating under the assumption that EDCs are only a threat to organisms that express a recognizable ER is that many invertebrates have been overlooked as targets of endocrine disruption. Only recently have laboratories begun looking for endocrine disruption phenotypes in organisms such as coral, Daphnia, and Caenorhabditis elegans, which do not have classic ERs (Custodia et al. 2001; Tarrant et al. 1999; Wu et al. 2001). Additionally, by focusing on extreme endocrine disruption phenotypes, such as sex reversal in fish or amphibians (Hayes et al. 2002; Jobling et al. 2002), more subtle but important phenotypes of endocrine disruption may be overlooked. After all, EDC-inhibition of one member of a signaling or regulatory cascade (NodD in rhizobia) results in reduced symbiotic gene activation leading to population-level effects on nitrogen-fixing symbiosis (Fox et al. 2004). On the basis of these emerging examples of endocrine disruption in a variety of unexpected target species, I propose a more mechanism-based approach for assessing the effects of EDCs on ecosystem-wide signaling webs.

By studying the intraorganismal and interorganismal communication mediated by hormone signaling in a multitude of species, we can begin to identify analogous signaling systems based on how EDCs and environmental estrogens may disrupt these signaling webs. An example of a signaling web, or a microcosm of hormone signals mediating communication, may be found in 1 in.² of soil, where signals are produced by plants to communicate with other plants, to recruit symbiotic soil bacteria and fungi, and to ward off nematodes and aphid pests (Dunn and Handelsman 2002; Guerrieri et al. 2002; Stracke et al. 2002). Just as soil bacteria must receive and integrate each of these hormone signals in the soil microenvironment and find the one recruitment phytochemical signal among so much chemical signaling "noise," so must humans exist in an environment awash in hormone chemical signals and yet still recognize appropriate endogenous hormone signals. As if this task of signal communication and interpretation were not daunting enough, each organism must contend not only with natural hormone signals but also with an ever-increasing number of "unintentional" hormonally active synthetic chemicals in the environment (Seiler 2002). By identifying and monitoring analogous signaling systems, we could more easily understand how the release of an abundance of synthetic chemicals into the environment, such as organochlorine pesticides intended to antagonize insects and unwanted pests, could inadvertently disrupt hormone signaling in a wide variety of organisms from mammals to symbiotic bacteria, all of whom rely on signaling webs for communication. After all, an assault on one form of signaling-based communication is likely an assault on many. As we begin to better understand the mechanisms by which organisms signal or communicate information, both endogenously and within their environment, we may discover an unlimited number of new targets for EDCs and environmental estrogens.

Because signaling communication webs are not unidirectional, we must consider not only how synthetic chemicals produced by humans may adversely affect biota in the environment but also how signals originating in bacteria or plants may affect signaling within the human body (McFall-Ngai 2002). Studies of analogous signaling methods used by a number of organisms may shed light on endocrine signaling and human health. For instance, researchers have shown that genes necessary for mammalian pathogenic bacteria to establish chronic infections in humans are homologous to genes in Rhizobium responsible for infecting plant hosts and establishing symbiosis (LeVier et al. 2000). As more evidence of homologous and analogous hormone signals and receptors emerges, we must consider how the inadvertent hormone signaling of EDCs, which is known to disrupt signaling cascades, gene activation, and hormonal homeostasis, may not only affect individuals (fecundity, reproduction) but also confound ecosystem-wide communication webs leading to unpredictable population-level effects.

The evolution of communication via hormone signaling may be one of the oldest and most crucial links shared between all organisms. To determine what is most important for the viability of an organism or an ecosystem, we must determine either what has been conserved over evolutionary time or what has been reinvented and selected for by convergent evolution (Baker 1992a, 2002; McLachlan 2001; Whiting et al. 2003). Communication via chemical signaling is a shared characteristic of all organisms and, thus, affects all members of an ecosystem. Therefore, I propose that chemical communication is a crucial component of ecosystem health and the primary target of EDCs found in the environment. The characterization of the disruption of an evolutionarily ancient symbiotic signaling system by EDCs (Fox et al. 2004) may provide insights into the mechanisms by which these same EDCs disrupt endocrine signaling in vertebrates. The study of analogous communication systems, such as mammalian endocrine signaling and plant-Rhizobium symbiotic signaling, will yield new insights into hormone signaling and disruption of hormone signaling by environmental estrogens and EDCs and may provide information on the evolution of nuclear receptors.

References Top

1. Abd-Alla MH, Omar SA, Karanxha S. 2000. The impact of pesticides on arbuscular mycorrhizal and nitrogen-fixing symbiosis in legumes. Appl Soil Ecol 14:191–200. Find this article online
2. Aigner EJ, Leone AD, Falconer RL. 1998. Concentrations and enantiomeric ratios of organochlorine pesticides in soils from the U.S. corn belt. Environ Science Technol 32:1162–1168. Find this article online
3. Baker ME. 1989. Human placental 17beta-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase is homologous to NodG protein of Rhizobium meliloti. Mol Endocrinol 3:881–884. Find this article online
4. Baker ME. 1991. Genealogy of regulation of human sex and adrenal function, prostaglandin action, snapdragon and petunia flower colors, antibiotics, and nitrogen fixation: functional diversity from two ancestral dehydrogenases. Steroids 56:354–360. Find this article online
5. Baker ME. 1992. . Evolution of regulation of steroid-mediated intercellular communication in vertebrates: insights from flavonoids, signals that mediate plant-rhizobia symbiosis. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 41:301–308. Find this article online
6. Baker ME. 1992. . Similarities between legume-rhizobium communication and steroid-mediated intercellular communication in vertebrates. Can J Microbiol 38:541–547. Find this article online
7. Baker ME. 1998. Flavonoids as Hormones: A Perspective from an Analysis of Molecular Fossils. New York:Plenum Press.
8. Baker ME. 2002. Recent insights into the origins of adrenal and sex steroid receptors. J Mol Endocrinol 28:149–152. Find this article online
9. Benner SA, Chamberlin SG, Liberles DA, Govindarajan S, Knecht L. 2000. Functional inferences from reconstructed evolutionary biology involving rectified databases--an evolutionarily grounded approach to functional genomics. Res Microbiol 151:97–106. Find this article online
10. Bennetts HW, Underwood EJ, Shier FLA. 1946. Breeding problem in sheep in the south-west division of West Australia. J Agric West Austral 23:1–12. Find this article online
11. Bitman J, Cecil HC, Harris SJ, Fries GF. 1968. Estrogenic activity of o,p-'DDT in the mammalian uterus and avian oviduct. Science 162:371–372. Find this article online
12. Bjornstrom L, Sjoberg M.. 2002. Signal transducers and activators of transcription as downstream targets of nongenomic estrogen receptor actions. Mol Endocrinol 16:2202–2214. Find this article online
13. Blair RM, Fang H, Branham WS, Hass BS, Dial SL, Moland CL, et al. 2000. The estrogen receptor relative binding affinities of 188 natural and xenochemicals: structural diversity of ligands. Toxicol Sci 54:138–153. Find this article online
14. Bolduc N, Ouellet M, Pitre F, Brisson LF. 2003. Molecular characterization of two plant BI-1 homologues which suppress Bax-induced apoptosis in human 293 cells. Planta 216:377–386. Find this article online
15. Cheek AO, Vonier PM, Oberdorster E, Colins-Burow B, McLachlan JA. 1998. Environmental signaling: a biological context for endocrine disruption. Environ Health Perspect 106: suppl 15–10. Find this article online
16. Cheung J, Smith DF. 2000. Molecular chaperone interactions with steroid receptors: an update. Mol Endocrinol 14:939–946. Find this article online
17. Clark KL, Larsen PB, Wang X, Chang C. 1998. Association of the Arabidopsis CTR1 Raf-like kinase with the ETR1 and ERS ethylene receptors. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95:5401–5406. Find this article online
18. Coldham NG, Dave M, Sivapathasundaram S, McDonnell DP, Connor C, Sauer MJ. 1997. Evaluation of a recombinant yeast cell estrogen screening assay. Environ Health Perspect 105:734–742. Find this article online
19. Collins-Burow BM, Burow ME, Duong BN, McLachlan JA. 2000. Estrogenic and antiestrogenic activities of flavonoid phytochemicals through estrogen receptor binding-dependent and -independent mechanisms. Nutr Cancer 38:229–244. Find this article online
20. Crump D, Werry K, Veldhoen N, Van Aggelen G, Helbing CC. 2002. Exposure to the herbicide acetochlor alters thyroid hormone-dependent gene expression and metamorphosis in Xenopus laevis. Environ Health Perspect 110:1199–1205. Find this article online
21. Custodia N, Won SJ, Novillo A, Wieland M, Li C, Callard IP. 2001. Caenorhabditis elegans as an environmental monitor using DNA microarray analysis. Ann NY Acad Sci 948:32–42. Find this article online
22. Danzo BJ. 1997. Environmental xenobiotics may disrupt normal endocrine function by interfering with the binding of physiological ligands to steroid receptors and binding proteins. Environ Health Perspect 105:294–301. Find this article online
23. Djordjevic MA, Redmond JW, Batley M, Rolfe BG. 1987. Clovers secrete specific phenolic compounds which either stimulate or repress nod gene expression in Rhizobium trifoli. EMBO J 6:1173–1179. Find this article online
24. Dodds EC, Goldberg L, Lawson W, Robinson R. 1938. Oestrogenic activity of certain synthetic compounds. Nature 141:247–249. Find this article online
25. Dodds EC, Lawson W. 1936. Synthetic oestrogenic agents without the phenanthrene nucleus. Nature 137:996.. Find this article online
26. Dunn AK, Handelsman J. 2002. Toward an understanding of microbial communities through analysis of communication networks. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 81:565–574. Find this article online
27. Facemire CF, Gross TS, Guilette LJ. 1995. Reproductive impairment in the Florida panther: nature or nurture. Environ Health Perspect 103: suppl 479–86. Find this article online
28. Firmin JL, Wilson KE, Rossen L, Johnston AWB. 1986. Flavonoid activation of nodulation genes in Rhizobium reversed by other compounds present in plants. Nature 324:90–93. Find this article online
29. Fisher RF, Long SR. 1993. Interactions of NodD at the nod box: NodD binds to two distinct sites on the same face of the helix and induces a bend in the DNA. J Mol Biol 233:336–348. Find this article online
30. Fox JE, Starcevic M, Jones PE, Burow ME, McLachlan JA. 2004. Phytoestrogen signaling and symbiotic gene activation are disrupted by endocrine-disrupting chemicals. Environ Health Perspect 112:672–677. Find this article online
31. Fox JE, Starcevic M, Kow KY, Burow ME, McLachlan JA. 2001. Nitrogen fixation. Endocrine disrupters and flavonoid signalling. Nature 413:128–129. Find this article online
32. Frigo DE, Duong BN, Melnik LI, Schief LS, Collins-Burow BM, Pace DK, et al. 2002. Flavonoid phytochemicals regulate activator protein-1 signal transduction pathways in endometrial and kidney stable cell lines. J Nutr 132:1848–1853. Find this article online
33. Guerrieri E, Poppy GM, Powell W, Rao R, Pennacchio F. 2002. Plant-to-plant communication mediating in-flight orientation of Aphidius ervi. J Chem Ecol 28:1703–1715. Find this article online
34. Guillette LJ Jr. 2000. Organochlorine pesticides as endocrine disruptors in wildlife. Cent Eur J Public Health 8: suppl34–35. Find this article online
35. Gyorgypal Z, Kondorosi A.. 1991. Homology of the ligand-binding regions of Rhizobium symbiotic regulatory protein NodD and vertebrate nuclear receptors. Mol Gen Genet 226:337–340. Find this article online
36. Hayes TB, Collins A, Lee M, Mendoza M, Noriega N, Stuart AA, et al. 2002. Hermaphroditic, demasculinized frogs after exposure to the herbicide atrazine at low ecologically relevant doses. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:5476–5480. Find this article online
37. Ishihara A, Nishiyama N, Sugiyama S, Yamauchi K.. 2003. The effect of endocrine disrupting chemicals on thyroid hormone binding to Japanese quail transthyretin and thyroid hormone receptor. Gen Comp Endocrinol 134:36–43. Find this article online
38. Jobling S, Beresford N, Nolan M, Rodgers-Gray T, Brighty GC, Sumpter JP, et al. 2002. Altered sexual maturation and gamete production in wild roach (Rutilus rutilus) living in rivers that receive treated sewage effluents. Biol Reprod 66:272–281. Find this article online
39. Katzenellenbogen BS, Choi I, Delage-Mourroux R, Ediger TR, Martini PG, Montano M, et al. 2000. Molecular mechanisms of estrogen action: selective ligands and receptor pharmacology. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 74:279–285. Find this article online
40. Kay RR. 1998. The biosynthesis of differentiation-inducing factor, a chlorinated signal molecule regulating Dictyostelium development. J Biol Chem 273:2669–2675. Find this article online
41. Klotz DM, Hewitt SC, Ciana P, Raviscioni M, Lindzey JK, Foley J, et al. 2002. Requirement of estrogen receptor-ɑ in insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1)-induced uterine responses and in vivo evidence for IGF-1/estrogen receptor cross-talk. J Biol Chem 277:8531–8537. Find this article online
42. Koonin EV, Wolf YI, Karev GP. 2002. The structure of the protein universe and genome evolution. Nature 420:218–223. Find this article online
43. Korach KS, Metzler M, McLachlan JA. 1979. Diethylstilbestrol metabolites and analogs. New probes for the study of hormone action. J Biol Chem 254:8963–8968. Find this article online
44. Kuiper GJM, Lemmen JG, Carlsson B, Corton JC, Safe SH, van der Saag PT, et al. 1997. Interaction of estrogenic chemicals and phytoestrogens with estrogen receptor ß. Endocrinology 139:4252–4263. Find this article online
45. Lai CH, Chou CY, Ch'ang LY, Liu CS, Lin W. 2000. Identification of novel human genes evolutionarily conserved in Caenorhabditis elegans by comparative proteomics. Genome Res 10:703–713. Find this article online
46. LeVier K, Phillips RW, Grippe VK, Roop RM II, Walker GC. 2000. Similar requirements of a plant symbiont and a mammalian pathogen for prolonged intracellular survival. Science 287:2492–2493. Find this article online
47. Li J, Biswas MG, Chao A, Russell DW, Chory J. 1997. Conservation of function between mammalian and plant steroid 5ɑ-reductases. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94:3554–3559. Find this article online
48. Long SR. 1989. Rhizobium-legume nodulation: life together in the underground. Cell 56:203–214. Find this article online
49. McFall-Ngai MJ. 2002. Unseen forces: the influence of bacteria on animal development. Dev Biol 242:1–14. Find this article online
50. McLachlan JA. 2001. Environmental signaling: what embryos and evolution teach us about endocrine disrupting chemicals. Endocr Rev 22:319–341. Find this article online
51. McLachlan JA, Korach KS, Newbold RR, Degen GH. 1984. Diethylstilbestrol and other estrogens in the environment. Fundam Appl Toxicol 4:686–691. Find this article online
52. Metzler M, Pfeiffer E.. 1995. Effects of estrogens on microtubule polymerization in vitro: correlation with estrogenicity. Environ Health Perspect 103: suppl 721–22. Find this article online
53. Meyerowitz EM. 2002. Plants compared to animals: the broadest comparative study of development. Science 295:1482–1485. Find this article online
54. Milanesi L, Monje P, Boland R.. 2001. Presence of estrogens and estrogen receptor-like proteins in Solanum glaucophyllum. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 289:1175–1179. Find this article online
55. Mitra J, Raghu K.. 1998. Long term DDT pollution in tropical soils: effect of DDT and degradation products on soil microbial activities leading to soil fertility. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 60:585–591. Find this article online
56. Moriyama K, Tagami T, Akamizu T, Usui T, Saijo M, Kanamoto N, et al. 2002. Thyroid hormone action is disrupted by bisphenol A as an antagonist. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 87:5185–5190. Find this article online
57. Nair SC, Toran EJ, Rimerman RA, Hjermstad S, Smithgall TE, Smith DF. 1996. A pathway of multi-chaperone interactions common to diverse regulatory proteins: estrogen receptor, Fes tyrosine kinase, heat shock transcription factor Hsf1, and the aryl hydrocarbon receptor. Cell Stress Chaperones 1:237–250. Find this article online
58. Nelson JA. 1974. Effects of dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) analogs and polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) mixtures on 17ß-[³H]estradiol binding to rat uterine receptor. Biochem Pharmacol 23:447–451. Find this article online
59. Oberdorster E, Clay MA, Cottam DM, Wilmot FA, McLachlan JA, Milner MJ. 2001. Common phytochemicals are ecdysteroid agonists and antagonists: a possible evolutionary link between vertebrate and invertebrate steroid hormones. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 77:229–238. Find this article online
60. Peters NK, Frost JW, Long SR. 1986. A plant flavone, luteolin, induces expression of Rhizobium meliloti nodulation genes. Science 233:977–980. Find this article online
61. Peters NK, Long SR. 1988. Alfalfa root exudates and compounds which promote or inhibit induction of Rhizobium meliloti nodulation genes. Plant Physiol 88:396–400. Find this article online
62. Petit F, Le Goff P, Cravedi JP, Valotaire Y, Pakdel F. 1997. Two complementary bioassays for screening the estrogenic potency of xenobiotics: recombinant yeast for trout estrogen receptor and trout hepatocyte cultures. J Mol Endocrinol 19:321–335. Find this article online
63. Rives AW, Galitski T. 2003. Modular organization of cellular networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:1128–1133. Find this article online
64. Seiler JP. 2002. Pharmacodynamic activity of drugs and ecotoxicology--can the two be connected? Toxicol Lett 131:105–115. Find this article online
65. Sheeler CQ, Dudley MW, Khan SA. 2000. Environmental estrogens induce transcriptionally active estrogen receptor dimers in yeast: activity potentiated by the coactivator RIP140. Environ Health Perspect 108:97–103. Find this article online
66. Stracke S, Kistner C, Yoshida S, Mulder L, Sato S, Kaneko T, et al. 2002. A plant receptor-like kinase required for both bacterial and fungal symbiosis. Nature 417:959–962. Find this article online
67. Suel GM, Lockless SW, Wall MA, Ranganathan R. 2003. Evolutionarily conserved networks of residues mediate allosteric communication in proteins. Nat Struct Biol 10:59–69. Find this article online
68. Takayama S, Reed JC. 2001. Molecular chaperone targeting and regulation by BAG family proteins. Nat Cell Biol 3:E237–241. Find this article online
69. Takeshita A, Koibuchi N, Oka J, Taguchi M, Shishiba Y, Ozawa Y.. 2001. Bisphenol-A, an environmental estrogen, activates the human orphan nuclear receptor, steroid and xenobiotic receptor-mediated transcription. Eur J Endocrinol 145:513–517. Find this article online
70. Tarrant AM, Atkinson S, Atkinson MJ. 1999. Estrone and estradiol-17ß concentration in tissue of the scleractinian coral, Montipora verrucosa. Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol 122:85–92. Find this article online
71. Thompson JN. 1999. The evolution of species interactions. Science 284:2116–2118. Find this article online
72. Thornton JW. 2001. Evolution of vertebrate steroid receptors from an ancestral estrogen receptor by ligand exploitation and serial genome expansions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:5671–5676. Find this article online
73. Thornton JW, Need E, Crews D. 2003. Resurrecting the ancestral steroid receptor: ancient origin of estrogen signaling. Science 301:1714–1717. Find this article online
74. Todd AE, Orengo CA, Thornton JM. 2001. Evolution of function in protein superfamilies, from a structural perspective. J Mol Biol 307:1113–1143. Find this article online
75. Town CD, Gross JD, Kay RR. 1976. Cell differentiation without morphogenesis in Dictyostelium discoideum. Nature 262:717–719. Find this article online
76. Tyler CR, Jobling S, Sumpter JP. 1998. Endocrine disruption in wildlife: a critical review of the evidence. Crit Rev Toxicol 28:319–361. Find this article online
77. van Rhijn P, Vanderleyden J.. 1995. The Rhizobium-plant symbiosis. Microbiol Rev 59:124–142. Find this article online
78. Weinstein-Oppenheimer CR, Burrows C, Steelman LS, McCubrey JA. 2002. The effects of beta-estradiol on Raf activity, cell cycle progression and growth factor synthesis in the MCF-7 breast cancer cell line. Cancer Biol Ther 1:256–262. Find this article online
79. Weldon CB, Scandurro AB, Rolfe KW, Clayton JL, Elliott S, Butler NN, et al. 2002. Identification of mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase as a chemoresistant pathway in MCF-7 cells by using gene expression microarray. Surgery 132:293–301. Find this article online
80. Whiting MF, Bradler S, Maxwell T. 2003. Loss and recovery of wings in stick insects. Nature 421:264–267. Find this article online
81. Whitten PL, Patisaul HB. 2001. Cross-species and interassay comparisons of phytoestrogen action. Environ Health Perspect 109: suppl 15–20. Find this article online
82. Wu WZ, Li W, Xu Y, Wang JW. 2001. Long-term toxic impact of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin on the reproduction, sexual differentiation, and development of different life stages of Gobiocypris rarus and Daphnia magna. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 48:293–300. Find this article online
83. Wynne-Edwards KE. 2001. Evolutionary biology of plant defenses against herbivory and their predictive implications for endocrine disruptor susceptibility in vertebrates. Environ Health Perspect 109:443–448. Find this article online
84. Yeh KC, Peck MC, Long SR. 2002. Luteolin and GroESL modulate in vitro activity of NodD. J Bacteriol 184:525–530. Find this article online
85. Zava DT, Blen M, Duwe G. 1997. Estrogenic activity of natural and synthetic estrogens in human breast cancer cells in culture. Environ Health Perspect 105: suppl 3637–645. Find this article online
86. Zava DT, Duwe G. 1997. Estrogenic and antiproliferative properties of flavonoids in human breast cancer cells in vivo. Nutr Cancer 27:31–40. Find this article online