Open Access

Research Article

Recent Data on PPARα Agonism and TCE Top

Recent efforts to elucidate the role of PPARα agonism in TCE-induced toxicity have focused on comparison of gene expression changes with other agonists and/or the use of PPAR α knockout mice. Recent data on DNA methylation changes and other MOAs for a number of agonists, including TCE and its metabolites DCA and TCA, are reported elsewhere in this mini-monograph (Caldwell and Keshava 2006). TCE-specific data using DNA arrays and knockout mice remain limited and difficult to interpret.

It is difficult to discern a clear pattern of common gene expression changes among TCE and its metabolites or for peroxisome proliferators in general for use in making inferences regarding common MOAs. For example, in a screening analysis of 148 genes for xenobiotic-metabolizing enzymes, DNA repair enzymes, heat-shock proteins (hsp), cytokines, and housekeeping genes in mouse liver, Bartosiewicz et al. (2001b) reported TCE-induced up-regulation of only three genes [hsp25 and hsp86, and cytochrome P450 2a (cyp2a)] at the highest dose tested (1,000 mg/kg) and repression of cyp2a at a much lower single dose (10 mg/kg) of TCE after a single intraperitoneal injection in corn oil. Using a similar paradigm with 260 genes, Bartosiewicz et al. (2001a) reported that exposure to 500 mg/kg clofibrate and 1,100 mg/kg di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) induced a different pattern of transcription than did TCE. DEHP and clofibrate cause increases in gene expression of acyl–coenzyme A (CoA) thioesterase, cyp4a10, and insulin-like growth factor (IGF), with clofibrate also inducing greater expression of these genes and additional induction of cyp2b9, a fatty acid–binding protein, and metallothionein II. The pattern of induction differed between kidney and liver for DEHP and clofibrate. Collier et al. (2003) reported 26 differentially expressed mRNA transcripts in embryonic hearts of Sprague-Dawley rats whose dams were exposed to 1,100 ppm TCE through drinking water between days 0 and 11 of pregnancy. Genes down-regulated with TCE exposure appear to be those associated with cellular housekeeping, cell adhesion, and developmental processes, whereas TCE exposure up-regulated expression of numerous stress-response and homeostatic genes.

Two studies have used PPARα knockout mice to investigate the importance of PPARα to TCE toxicity. However, interpretation of PPARα knockout mice data in general poses some unique difficulties due to differences in baseline responses, some of which were observed in the TCE-specific studies as well. In one study, Laughter et al. (2004) used macroarrays containing approximately 1,200 genes and reported altered expression of 43 genes in the TCE-treated wild-type mice and 67 genes in PPARα knockout mice after 3 days of exposure to up to 1,500 mg/kg/day TCE. The authors reported that of the 43 genes with altered expression in wild-type mice after TCE exposure, 40 genes were dependent on PPAR α. These genes included cyp4a12, epidermal growth factor receptor, and additional genes involved in cell growth. However, the interpretation of this information is difficult because a comparison of gene expression profiles between controls (wild-type and PPARα knockout) was not reported. Moreover, after 3 weeks of TCE treatment (0–1,500 mg/kg via gavage), Laughter et al. (2004) reported toxicity at the 1,500 mg/kg level in the knockout mice that was not observed in the wild-type mice; all knockout mice were moribund and had to be removed from the study. Inspections of livers and kidneys from the group did not reveal overt signs of toxicity that would lead to morbidity. At the same dose, wild-type mice exhibited mild granuloma formation with calcification or mild hepatocyte degeneration with centrilobular hepatocyte hypertrophy. A TCE treatment–related increase in liver weight was reported in wild-type mice but not in knockout mice. However, knockout mice had a greater liver-to-body weight ratio than did wild-type mice at all levels of exposure, including controls, making detection of a TCE-induced change difficult. Similarly, the knockout mice also had higher baseline levels of hepatocyte proliferation. Both knockout and wild-type mice appeared to have similar levels of hepatocyte proliferation after 1,000 mg/kg TCE, with a high variability in response. No analysis was reported to determine a statistical difference in proliferation between the two types of mice as a consequence of TCE exposure. Kidney-to-body weight ratios were increased in wild-type but not in knockout mice compared with controls. No changes in kidney weights were reported after 3 weeks of exposure.

In an earlier study, Nakajima et al. (2000) reported that the number of peroxisomes in hepatocytes increased by 2-fold in wild-type mice but not in PPARα knockout mice after 2 weeks of TCE exposure by gavage (0.75 g/kg). However, TCE induced increased liver weight in both male and female wild-type and knockout mice, suggesting hepatic effects independent of PPARα activation. Interestingly, Laughter et al. (2004) reported no difference in liver-to-body weight ratios between wild-type and knockout mice after 1 week of exposure to 2.0 g/L TCA and only a small difference after 1 week of 2.0 g/L DCA. The authors suggested liver weight changes as a surrogate for peroxisomal proliferative activity, although neither PP nor changes in glycogen content (which also can affect weight) of the liver were directly measured.

MOAs for Liver Toxicity Top

Klaunig et al. (2003) proposed an MOA for liver carcinogenicity in rodents of PPARα activation, associated PP, increased cell proliferation, decreased apoptosis, and clonal expansion of preneoplastic cells, but there are notable inconsistencies with this hypothesis. Long-term carcinogenicity studies of the PPARα agonist gemfibrozil (GEM) showed a dose-related increase in liver tumors in male rats, whereas in females a dose-dependent decrease in liver tumors was reported (International Agency for Research on Cancer 1996). Klaunig et al. (2003) place substantial weight on PP as an associative event in their proposed MOA, viewing PP as an indicator of sensitivity to hepatocarcinogenic effects. However, studies in rats with two PPARα agonists, WY and DEHP, demonstrated that doses that produced equivalent levels of hepatic PP, measured as peroxisome number and peroxisomal enzyme activity, produced markedly different liver tumor incidences. The degree of PP correlated poorly with the relative hepatocarcinogenicity of DEHP and WY but was correlated with the ability to induce a persistent increase in replicative DNA synthesis (Marsman et al. 1988).

In another study Reddy and Rao (1989) hypothesized MOA is DNA damage caused by marked increases in free radical–generating enzymes of the peroxisomal β-oxidation through hydrogen peroxide. However, Bannasch (1996) noted that this hypothesis is not supported by the findings in rats treated with the peroxisome proliferator dehydroepiandrosterone, a potential natural regulator of the peroxisomal compartment. Amphophilic cell foci preceding the appearance of hepatocellular neoplasms do not develop from the perivenular zones, in which the most pronounced PP occurs but from the periportal areas in which the prevailing cellular alteration is proliferation of mitochondria (Bannasch 1996). Interestingly, Nakajima et al. (2000) also reported that TCE induced peroxisomes in perivenular but not in periportal areas of mice liver.

One study showed that extraperoxisomal effects of PPARα agonists that may be related to tumor induction are effects on mitochondria, which have a role in several aspects of tumor biology and whose DNA may have increased susceptibility. Zhou and Wallace (1999) reported that GEM and WY induced the mitochondrial permeability transition as characterized by calcium-induced swelling and depolarization of membrane potential, both of which were inhibited by cyclosporine A. Fenofibrate, clofibrate, ciprofibrate, and DEHP, on the other hand, caused a direct dose-dependent depolarization of mitochondrial membrane potential. However, the mechanism of membrane depolarization varied among the test chemicals. Bezafibrate and TCE elicited no effect on succinate-supported mitochondrial bioenergetics. The authors concluded that most but not all the peroxisome proliferators they studied interfered with mitochondrial bioenergetics and that the specific biomolecular mechanism differed among the individual compounds. Peroxisome proliferators have also been reported to induce pronounced mitochondrial proliferation and increased activity of mitochondrial enzymes in liver tumors (Bannasch et al. 2001).

Polyak et al. (1998) have examined mitochondria and neoplasia, primarily because of their role in apoptosis and other aspects of tumor biology. The mitochondrial genome is particularly susceptible to mutations because of the high level of reactive oxygen species generation in this organelle coupled with a low level of DNA repair. The authors reported mutations in the mitochondrial genome in most human colorectal cancers examined. Petros et al. (2005) reported mutations in the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) that have been found to fulfill all the criteria expected for pathogenic mutations causing prostate cancer. Booker et al. (2006) reported that the highly polymorphic mitochondrial genome, which is separate from nuclear DNA, confers an inherited cancer risk for prostate and renal cancers. Possible effects of peroxisome proliferators on mitochondrial genomics have not been investigated.

Another area of active investigation has been whether PPARα agonists activate nonparenchymal liver cells such as Kupffer cells independently of PPARα activation and whether such activation may be necessary for tumor induction, particularly due to their role in parenchymal cell proliferation and apoptosis suppression (Hasmall et al. 2001; Holden et al. 2000; Parzefall et al. 2001; Peters et al. 2000; Roberts et al. 2002; Rusyn et al. 2000, 2001). Although the hypothesized MOA for induction of acyl–CoA oxidase (ACO) leading to increased production of H₂O₂ and DNA damage seems unlikely, free radicals may be important in signaling Kupffer cells to produce mitogenic cytokines [e.g., tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α)].

Rusyn et al. (2000, 2001) suggest that cell proliferation and tumors require parenchymal cell PPARα and TNF-α production by Kupffer cells. They also suggest that peroxisome proliferators increase free radicals in the liver before peroxisomal oxidases are induced and activate the transcription factor nuclear factor κB (NF-κB; one of the major regulators of TNF-α expression) in Kupffer cells. Interestingly, they report that corn oil (often used as a vehicle) rapidly activated NF-κB in Kupffer cells and triggered production of low levels of TNF-α. Other studies support TNF-α acting downstream or independently of PPARα to mediate the suppression of apoptosis and induction of DNA synthesis by peroxisome proliferators (Holden et al. 2000; Peters et al. 2000; Roberts et al. 2002). Klaunig et al. (2003) noted that responsiveness (or lack thereof) in human hepatocyte assay systems could be linked to removal of Kupffer cells during preparation.

Pleiotropic Responses and Actions of PPARα Top

Although studies of TCA, DCA, and other PPARα agonists in human hepatocyte cultures seem to indicate that the human liver is refractory to markers of PP (e.g., Walgren et al. 2000a, 2000b), humans are responsive to at least some other effects from PPARα agonism, as evidenced by the efficacy of hypolipidemic fibrate drugs. An extensive research effort into PPARs, much of it published since 2001, has been set off by evidence that highly prevalent chronic diseases such as diabetes, obesity, atherosclerosis, and cancer may involve PPAR activity and may be affected by PPAR agonists such as thiazolidinediones and fibrates (Kersten et al. 2000). Table 1 summarizes some of the recent literature regarding activities and effect of activation of the PPARα receptor, demonstrating its pleiotropic nature. Along with the liver, other target organs and systems affected include muscle, cardiovascular system, small intestine, testes, ovary, thyroid, adrenal axis, and immune system.

In the liver, PPARα responses involve not only the parenchymal cells of the liver (hepatocytes), but also macrophages (Kupffer cells). Activities affected include lipid and glucose metabolism; bile acid synthesis; macrophage cholesterol homeostasis, inflammatory cytokine production, and recruitment to inflammatory sites; actions and control of hormones (glucocorticoids, growth hormones thyroid estrogen); and protein expression (those involved with all stages of atherosclerosis, liver fatty acid binding, male rat-specific α₂μ-globulin, a mouse homologue of α₂μ, glutathione S-transferase, glutathione reductase, and the CYP genes cyp2b, cyp2c, cyp3a, cyp1a1, and cyp4a). Effects on the vulnerability of the liver to other insults such as acetaminophen toxicity have also been reported. Moreover, because some of these extraperoxisomal effects of PPARα agonists may not depend on interaction with PPARα, Scatena et al. (2003) suggest that the biochemical profile and a therapeutic role of this class of PPAR ligands are more complex than previously proposed.

That PPARα agonism results in pleiotropic responses should not be surprising. Poole et al. (2001) have shown that after an agonist binds to the PPARα receptor, it heterodimerizes with the retinoid X receptor, with the heterodimer interacting with DNA sequences or response elements found in a large number of responsive genes. An examination of the full spectrum of PPARα activity is necessary to make a comprehensive comparison with TCE-induced effects, and a number of issues in examining and interpreting these data are discussed in the sections that follow.

Gene regulation and expression

There is a growing database on the differences in responses among PPARα agonists as well as the pleiotropic responses they induce. Some agonists have been shown to display activity toward more than one receptor (Berger and Moller 2002; Liu et al. 2005), which complicates interpretation of data across chemicals. Using the same paradigm, an examination of several recent publications, summarized in Table 2, reveals inconsistent results between PPARα agonists, paradoxes between mRNA and protein expression, strain, gender, and species differences in response to the same chemical, and time-dependent differences in response (Fan et al. 2003, 2004; O’Brien et al. 2001; Poole et al. 2001).

In addition male rats have been reported to be more responsive to fibrates than are female rats. Jalouli et al. (2003) reported that male rats had higher levels of hepatic PPARα mRNA and protein than did female rats. The authors suggested that sex hormones regulate the sex difference in hepatic PPARα levels but not via the sexually dimorphic growth hormone secretory pattern. Nakajima et al. (2000) reported no remarkable sex difference in TCE-induced PP in wild-type mice, as measured morphologically, but a markedly higher induction of several enzymes and PPARα protein and mRNA was found in the liver of males after 2 weeks of exposure.

As mentioned above, PPARα knockout mice have been used to make inferences about PPARα expression effects, but no common pattern of gene expression has emerged. Valles et al. (2003) reported exposure of diisononyl phthalate in B6C3F₁ and SV129 wild-type and knockout mice to show a varied pattern of gene expression dependent on gender and age. They suggested that some changes in gene expression were dependent on PPARα activity and others were not. Macdonald et al. (2001) reported alteration of 59 PPARα- and peroxisome-dependent proteins after DEHP treatment. Proteins identified as being regulated by PPARα were known to be involved not only in lipid metabolism pathways but also in amino acid and carbohydrate metabolism, mitochondrial bioenergetics, and stress responses, including several genes not previously reported to be regulated by PPARα. Hasmall et al. (2002) reported a 3- to 7-fold down-regulation of lactoferrin mRNA in response to DEHP in wild-type versus PPARα knockout mice. The authors suggested that the regulation of iron-binding proteins by PPARα ligands plays a role in peroxisome proliferator–mediated liver growth but not in PP.

Another approach for investigation of PPARα related effects is to study its overex-pression. Jia et al. (2003) reported that disruption of the inducible β-oxidation pathway in mice at the level of fatty ACO results in spontaneous PP and sustained activation of PPARα. Meyer et al. (2003) used cDNA microarrays to study the expression profiles of 26 hepatocellular carcinomas developing spontaneously in peroxisomal fatty ACO knockout mice. Comparisons of the knockout mouse liver tumor expression profiles with those induced by ciprofibrate or diethylnitrosamine showed that these mice shared a number of deregulated (up- or down-regulated) genes with ciprofibrate-induced liver tumors.

Use of PPARα knockout mice to study MOA

Several studies have used PPARα knockout mice to try to determine specific responses associated with PPAR agonism and potential MOA of liver cancer induction, but concerns have been raised regarding the adequacy of this model. These are related to both existing study designs (e.g., a less-than-lifetime analysis of tumor induction) and to whether the intrinsic characteristics of these knockout mice mean that they exhibit responses that differ from those of wild-type mice independent of effects related to PPARα agonism. The recent study by Laughter et al. (2004), discussed above, illustrates the potential difficulties in interpreting studies using knockout mice.

Huss and Kelly (2004) reported massive cardiac lipid accumulation and hepatic steatosis in PPARα knockout mice after fasting or pharmacologic inhibition of fatty acid oxidation. Such mice have reduced cardiac expression of genes involved in the cellular uptake, mitochondrial transport, and mitochondrial (and peroxisomal) oxidation of fatty acids. After exposure to stress, PPARα knockout mice have decreased ATP concentration with abnormal cristae of the mitochondria, abnormal caveolae, and fibrosis in the myocardium in an age-dependent manner (Watanabe et al. 2000). After partial hepatectomy, PPARα knockout mice have a 12- to 24-hr delay in liver regeneration and hepatic gene expression with a delayed onset and lower peak magnitude of hepatocellular DNA synthesis (Anderson et al. 2002). Furthermore, these mice had a 24-hr lag in the hepatic expression of the G₁/S checkpoint regulator genes cyclin D1 (Ccnd1) and c-myc and increased expression of the interleukin-1β cytokine gene (genes involved in cell cycle control, cytokine signaling, and fat metabolism). Epidermal regeneration has also been reported to be affected in PPARα knockout mice (Michalik et al. 2001, 2002).

Costet et al. (1998) reported that with stable caloric intake, PPARα knockout mice were a model of monogenic, spontaneous, late-onset obesity, with a marked sexual dimorphism. Increased serum triglycerides, cholesterol, and phosholipids were elevated in aged PPARα knockout mice, with higher serum triglycerides in females. Females also developed a more pronounced obesity than did males but no steatosis. Males showed a marked steatosis restricted to the centrilobular region, a delayed occurrence of obesity, and larger elevation in hepatic cholesterol and triglycerides than did females or wild-type mice. By 302 days, normal hepatocytes were restricted to periportal zones. All animals showed an increase in all fat tissues (including brown fat).

Shankar et al. (2003) also reported PPARα knockout mice to have significant steatosis without treatment. Lewitt et al. (2001) reported PPARα knockout mice to have a sexually dimorphic phenotype, with PPARα influencing the IGF/IGF-binding protein response to feeding, particularly in males, and suggested that gender differences in the IGF system contribute to the PPARα knockout phenotype. It has been suggested that elevated serum levels of IGF1 and leptin are associated with increased risk of developing cancer (Hursting et al. 2003; Liu et al. 2001; Sandhu et al. 2002; Thompson et al. 1999). Not only are hepatocytes abnormal and adversely affected from knockout of the PPARα gene, but full expression of carcinogenicity, especially by weaker agonists, may be limited by decreased survival [i.e., untreated knockout mice begin to die by age 3 months, with a 50% mortality rate by 6 months and 100% mortality rate by 11 months of age (Nohammer et al. 2003)].

Intrinsic factors that may affect PPAR-mediated risks

Important considerations in trying to determine the potential effects of PPAR agonists and how they may contribute to TCE toxicity and risk are the intrinsic factors that affect that risk. Modulation of PPAR-mediated risks by intrinsic factors such as genetic polymorphisms, disease states, and life stages may give important clues about key steps in their MOAs and the effects of agonism or changes in receptor function. A number of recent studies are summarized below that are representative of the issues currently under investigation. Although a definitive picture has yet to emerge, the investigations of polymorphic responses in particular could be informative of potential human uncertainty and variability in susceptibility to a number of end points and targets besides the liver.

Graham et al. (2004) recently reported significantly increased incidence of hospitalized rhabdomyolysis in patients treated with fibrates both alone and in combination with statins. Brisson et al. (2002) suggest that frequent genetic variations in genes encoding proteins involved in triglyceride-rich lipoprotein metabolism could modulate the response to fenofibrate treatment, as defined in clinical guidelines. Robitaille et al. (2004) reported that the PPARα-L162V polymorphism alone or in interaction with dietary fat intake was associated with components of the metabolic syndrome. Vohl et al. (2000) reported an association between the PPARα V162 allele and the atherogenic/hyperapolipoprotein B dyslipidemia. Jamshidi et al. (2002) reported that variation in the PPARα gene influenced human left ventricular growth in response to exercise and hypertension, indicating that maladaptive cardiac substrate use can play a causative role in the pathogenesis of left ventricular hypertrophy. Eurlings et al. (2002) reported that the PPARα gene was a modifier of the familial combined hyperlipidemia phenotype [a common genetic lipid disorder present in 10% of patients with premature coronary artery disease (CAD)]. Lacquemant et al. (2000) screened the PPARα gene for mutations to test the genetic contribution of the PPARα in diabetes and its vascular complications and concluded that it is unlikely that the PPARα gene had a major role in diabetes and CAD in their populations.

Huss and Kelly (2004) suggested that PPARα and PPARβ are primary regulators of fatty acid metabolism in the heart and that disturbances of PPARα either through inactivation or chronic stimulation can have deleterious effects, particularly in the context of diabetes, hyperlipidemic states, or the ischemic heart. The insulin-resistant and diabetic heart is characterized by increased fatty acid oxidation rates that may be related to chronic stimulation of the PPARα gene regulatory pathway. Mice genetically modified to mimic the metabolic derangements of the diabetic heart (i.e., cardiac-specific overexpression of PPARα) (Harris et al. 2004) had ventricular diastolic/systolic dysfunction at baseline, which was exacerbated by high-fat feeding or insulinopenia, and developed cardiomyopathy. Jove et al. (2004) reported that decrease of mtDNA content has been related to the pathogenesis of type 2 diabetes mellitus and showed increased expression of PPARα and its target genes to be involved in fatty acid metabolism in skeletal muscle of Zucker diabetic fatty rats. Asayama et al. (1999) have reported PPARα expression and activity to be increased in diabetic rat liver.

Regarding life stages, there is also evidence that peroxisome proliferators are much more potent in producing tumors in older rats than in younger ones, even though effects on PP and cell proliferation were the same (Chao et al. 2002; Youssef and Badr 2002; Youssef et al. 2003). A promotion effect in older animals with already initiated foci could be the MOA for increased sensitivity of older rats to PPARα effects. Specific time- and tissue-dependent patterns of PPARα, PPARδ, and PPARγ expression have been shown during fetal development and in adult animals (Michalik et al. 2001, 2002). Data on humans are limited. Other factors in the developing rodent or human (i.e., differences in cell proliferation, xenobiotic metabolism) could affect sensitivity to PPARα hepatocarcinogenesis. Ring et al. (1999) reported that in addition to differences in metabolic enzymes, the fetal liver has a unique physiologic milieu (e.g., fetal hepatic circulation and zonation of drug-metabolizing enzymes along the hepatic acinus differs substantially from the adult). Placental transfer of the clofibrate with increased PP and CYP4A mRNA has been demonstrated in both maternal and fetal livers (3-fold mRNA elevation in fetuses) (Simpson et al. 1996), as has translactational induction of CYP4A expression by clofibrate in neonatal rats (Simpson et al. 1995).

Summary Top

The studies reviewed here suggest that, given its pleiotropic responses, PPARα agonism may play a complex role in cell signaling and gene expression changes that contribute to a variety of different diseases and effects. Unfortunately, common patterns of gene expression changes among TCE, its metabolites, and other PPARα agonists, particularly those related to tumorigenic responses, have yet to be identified, precluding their use in delineating common MOAs. Recent data also suggest that even for liver tumor induction, extraperoxisomal effects such as changes in mitochondria and activation of Kupffer cells may play an important role, so inferences based on PP or purified hepatocyte cultures alone may be misleading. Recent studies also suggest that knockout and wild-type mice have baseline differences in liver parameters before treatment and exhibit differences in response to agonists, including TCE and its metabolites, independent of the peroxisomal effects, making interpretation of such studies challenging. On the whole, recent studies suggest that inferences regarding the MOA(s)—and hence the human relevance and susceptibility—of TCE-induced effects require a better understanding of the interplay of extraperoxisomal events after PPARα agonism.

Figures and Tables Top

Table 1.

Recent literature on effects associated with PPARα agonism or related to its mechanisms of action.

Table 2.

Examples of chemical-, gender-, species-, and PPARα polymorphism-dependent responses to PPARα agonists.^a

References Top

1. Anderson SP, Yoon L, Richard EB, Dunn CS, Cattley RC, Corton JC 2002. Delayed liver regeneration in peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-α-null mice Hepatology 36:544–554.12198646 Find this article online
2. Asayama K, Sandhir R, Sheikh FG, Hayashibe H, Nakane T, Singh I 1999. Increased peroxisomal fatty acid β-oxidation and enhanced expression of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-α in diabetic rat liver Mol Cell Biochem 194:227–234.10391144 Find this article online
3. Bannasch P 1996. Pathogenesis of hepatocellular carcinoma: sequential cellular, molecular, and metabolic changes Prog Liver Dis 16:161–197.9055578 Find this article online
4. Bannasch P, Nehrbass D, Kopp-Schneider A 2001. Significance of hepatic preneoplasia for cancer chemoprevention IARC Sci Publ 154:223–240.11220662 Find this article online
5. Barbier O, Duran-Sandoval D, Pineda-Torra I, Kosykh V, Fruchart JC, Staels B 2003a. Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor α induces hepatic expression of the human bile acid glucuronidating UDP-glucuronosyltransferase 2B4 enzyme J Biol Chem 278:32852–32860.12810707 Find this article online
6. Barbier O, Torra IP, Duguay Y, Blanquart C, Fruchart JC, Glineur C, et al. 2002. Pleiotropic actions of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors in lipid metabolism and atherosclerosis Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 22:717–726.12006382 Find this article online
7. Barbier O, Villeneuve L, Bocher V, Fontaine C, Torra IP, Duhem C, et al. 2003b. The UDP-glucuronosyltransferase 1A9 enzyme is a peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor α and γ target gene J Biol Chem 278:13975–13983.12582161 Find this article online
8. Bartosiewicz M, Jenkins D, Penn S, Emory J, Buckpitt A 2001a. Unique gene expression patterns in liver and kidney associated with exposure to chemical toxicants J Pharmacol Exp Ther 297(3):895–905.11356909 Find this article online
9. Bartosiewicz M, Penn S, Buckpitt A 2001b. Applications of gene arrays in environmental toxicology: fingerprints of gene regulation associated with cadmium chloride, benzo(a)pyrene, and trichloroethylene Environ Health Perspect 109:71–74.11171528 Find this article online
10. Berger J, Moller DE 2002. The mechanisms of action of PPARs Annu Rev Med 53:409–435.11818483 Find this article online
11. Berger J, Wagner JA 2002. Physiological and therapeutic roles of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors Diabetes Technol Ther 4:163–174.12079620 Find this article online
12. Booker LM, Habermacher GM, Jessie BC, Sun QC, Baumann AK, Amin M, et al. 2006. North American white mitochondrial haplogroups in prostate and renal cancer J Urol 175(2):468–473.16406974 Find this article online
13. Brisson D, Ledoux K, Bosse Y, St-Pierre J, Julien P, Perron P, et al. 2002. Effect of apolipoprotein E, peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha and lipoprotein lipase gene mutations on the ability of fenofibrate to improve lipid profiles and reach clinical guideline targets among hypertriglyceridemic patients Pharmacogenetics 12:313–320.12042669 Find this article online
14. Bull RJ 2000. Mode of action of liver tumor induction by trichloroethylene and its metabolites, trichloroacetate and dichloroacetate Environ Health Perspect 108(suppl 2):241–259.10807555 Find this article online
15. Caldwell JC, Keshava N 2006. Key issues in the modes of action and effects of trichloroethylene metabolites for liver and kidney tumorigenesis Environ Health Perspect 114:1457–1463.16966105 Find this article online
16. Chao C, Youssef J, Rezaiekhaleigh M, Birnbaum LS, Badr M 2002. Senescence-associated decline in hepatic peroxisomal enzyme activities corresponds with diminished levels of retinoid X receptor alpha, but not peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha Mech Ageing Dev 123:1469–1476.12425954 Find this article online
17. Chen C, Hennig GE, Whiteley HE, Corton JC, Manautou JE 2000. Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor α-null mice lack resistance to acetaminophen hepatotoxicity following clofibrate exposure Toxicol Sci 57:338–344.11006363 Find this article online
18. Chen C, Hennig GE, Whiteley HE, Manautou JE 2002. Protection against acetaminophen hepatotoxicity by clofibrate pre-treatment: role of catalase induction J Biochem Mol Toxicol 16:227–234.12439864 Find this article online
19. Chiu WA, Caldwell JC, Keshava N, Scott CS 2006. Key scientific issues in the health risk assessment of trichloroethylene Environ Health Perspect 114:1445–1449.16966103 Find this article online
20. Collier JM, Selmin O, Johnson PD, Runyan RB 2003. Trichloroethylene effects on gene expression during cardiac development Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol 67:488–495.14565619 Find this article online
21. Costet P, Legendre C, More J, Edgar A, Galtier P, Pineau T 1998. Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha-isoform deficiency leads to progressive dyslipidemia with sexually dimorphic obesity and steatosis J Biol Chem 273:29577–29585.9792666 Find this article online
22. Dufour JM, Vo MN, Bhattacharya N, Okita J, Okita R, Kim KH 2003. Peroxisome proliferators disrupt retinoic acid receptor alpha signaling in the testis Biol Reprod 68:1215–1224.12606456 Find this article online
23. Escher P, Braissant O, Basu-Modak S, Michalik L, Wahli W, Desvergne B 2001. Rat PPARs: quantitative analysis in adult rat tissues and regulation in fasting and refeeding Endocrinology 142:4195–4202.11564675 Find this article online
24. Eurlings PM, van der Kallen CJ, Geurts JM, Flavell DM, de Bruin TW 2002. Identification of the PPARA locus on chromosome 22q13.3 as a modifier gene in familial combined hyperlipidemia Mol Genet Metab 77:274–281.12468272 Find this article online
25. Fan LQ, Coley J, Miller RT, Cattley RC, Corton JC 2003. Opposing mechanisms of NADPH-cytochrome P450 oxidoreductase regulation by peroxisome proliferators Biochem Pharmacol 65:949–959.12623126 Find this article online
26. Fan LQ, You L, Brown-Borg H, Brown S, Edwards RJ, Corton JC 2004. Regulation of phase I and phase II steroid metabolism enzymes by PPAR α activators Toxicology 204:109–121.15388238 Find this article online
27. Gazouli M, Yao ZX, Boujrad N, Corton JC, Culty M, Papadopoulos V 2002. Effect of peroxisome proliferators on Leydig cell peripheral-type benzodiazepine receptor gene expression, hormone-stimulated cholesterol transport, and steroidogenesis: role of the peroxisome proliferator-activator receptor α Endocrinology 143:2571–2583.12072389 Find this article online
28. Graham DJ, Staffa JA, Shatin D, Andrade SE, Schech SD, La GL, et al. 2004. Incidence of hospitalized rhabdomyolysis in patients treated with lipid-lowering drugs JAMA 292:2585–2590.15572716 Find this article online
29. Guerre-Millo M, Rouault C, Poulain P, Andre J, Poitout V, Peters JM, et al. 2001. PPAR-α-null mice are protected from high-fat diet-induced insulin resistance Diabetes 50:2809–2814.11723064 Find this article online
30. Harris IS, Treskov I, Rowley MW, Heximer S, Kaltenbronn K, Finck BN, et al. 2004. G-Protein signaling participates in the development of diabetic cardiomyopathy Diabetes 53:3082–3090.15561937 Find this article online
31. Hasmall S, James N, Hedley K, Olsen K, Roberts R 2001. Mouse hepatocyte response to peroxisome proliferators: dependency on hepatic nonparenchymal cells and peroxisome proliferator activated receptor α (PPARα) Arch Toxicol 75:357–361.11570693 Find this article online
32. Hasmall S, Orphanides G, James N, Pennie W, Hedley K, Soames A, et al. 2002. Downregulation of lactoferrin by PPARalpha ligands: role in perturbation of hepatocyte proliferation and apoptosis Toxicol Sci 68:304–313.12151626 Find this article online
33. Hays T, Rusyn I, Burns AM, Kennett MJ, Ward JM, Gonzalez FJ, et al. 2005. Role of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor α (PPAR α) in benzafibrate-induced hepatocarcinogenesis and cholestasis Carcinogenesis 26(1):219–227.15447978 Find this article online
34. Holden PR, Hasmall SC, James NH, West DR, Brindle RD, Gonzalez FJ, et al. 2000. Tumour necrosis factor α (TNFα): role in suppression of apoptosis by the peroxisome proliferator nafenopin Cell Mol Biol (Noisy-le-grand) 46:29–39.10726969 Find this article online
35. Hursting SD, Lavigne JA, Berrigan D, Perkins SN, Barrett JC 2003. Calorie restriction, aging, and cancer prevention: mechanisms of action and applicability to humans Annu Rev Med 54:131–152.12525670 Find this article online
36. Huss JM, Kelly DP 2004. Nuclear receptor signaling and cardiac energetics Circ Res 95:568–578.15375023 Find this article online
37. Huss JM, Kelly DP 2005. Mitochondrial energy metabolism in heart failure: a question of balance J Clin Invest 115:547–555.15765136 Find this article online
38. Huss JM, Torra IP, Staels B, Giguere V, Kelly DP 2004. Estrogen-related receptor alpha directs peroxisome proliferation-activated receptor α signaling in the transcriptional control of energy metabolism in cardiac and skeletal muscle Mol Cell Biol 24:9079–9091.15456881 Find this article online
39. International Agency for Research on Cancer 1996. Some pharmaceutical drugs IARC Monogr Eval Carcinog Risks Hum 66:514. Find this article online
40. Jalouli M, Carlsson L, Ameen C, Linden D, Ljungberg A, Michalik L, et al. 2003. Sex difference in hepatic peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor α expression: influence of pituitary and gonadal hormones Endocrinology 144:101–109.12488335 Find this article online
41. Jamshidi Y, Montgomery HE, Hense HW, Myerson SG, Torra IP, Staels B, et al. 2002. Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor α gene regulates left ventricular growth in response to exercise and hypertension Circulation 105:950–955.11864924 Find this article online
42. Jia Y, Qi C, Zhang Z, Hashimoto T, Rao MS, Huyghe S, et al. 2003. Overexpression of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-α (PPARα)-regulated genes in liver in the absence of peroxisome proliferation in mice deficient in both l- and d-forms of enoyl-CoA hydratase/dehydrogenase enzymes of peroxisomal β-oxidation system J Biol Chem 278:47232–47239.14500732 Find this article online
43. Jiang YJ, Lu B, Xu FY, Gartshore J, Taylor WA, Halayko AJ, et al. 2004. Stimulation of cardiac cardiolipin biosynthesis by PPARα activation J Lipid Res 45:244–252.14594999 Find this article online
44. Jove M, Salla J, Planavila A, Cabrero A, Michalik L, Wahli W, et al. 2004. Impaired expression of NADH dehydrogenase subunit 1 and PPARγ coactivator-1 in skeletal muscle of ZDF rats: restoration by troglitazone J Lipid Res 45:113–123.14563825 Find this article online
45. Kersten S, Desvergne B, Wahli W 2000. Roles of PPARs in health and disease Nature 405:421–424.10839530 Find this article online
46. Kersten S, Mandard S, Escher P, Gonzalez FJ, Tafuri S, Desvergne B, et al. 2001. The peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor α regulates amino acid metabolism FASEB J 15:1971–1978.11532977 Find this article online
47. Kim HS, Saito K, Ishizuka M, Kazusaka A, Fujita S 2003. Short period exposure to di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate regulates testosterone metabolism in testis of prepubertal rats Arch Toxicol 77(8):446–451.12830367 Find this article online
48. Klaunig JE, Babich MA, Baetcke KP, Cook JC, Corton JC, David RM, et al. 2003. PPARα agonist-induced rodent tumors: modes of action and human relevance Crit Rev Toxicol 33:655–780.14727734 Find this article online
49. Klotz L, Hacker HJ, Klingmuller D, Bannasch P, Pfeifer U, Dombrowski F 2000. Hepatocellular alterations after intra-portal transplantation of ovarian tissue in ovariectomized rats Am J Pathol 156:1613–1626.10793073 Find this article online
50. Komar CM, Braissant O, Wahli W, Curry TE Jr 2001. Expression and localization of PPARs in the rat ovary during follicular development and the periovulatory period Endocrinology 142:4831–4838.11606451 Find this article online
51. Lacquemant C, Lepretre F, Pineda Torra I, Manraj M, Charpentier G, Ruiz J, et al. 2000. Mutation screening of the PPARalpha gene in type 2 diabetes associated with coronary heart disease Diabetes Metab 26:393–401.11119019 Find this article online
52. Laughter AR, Dunn CS, Swanson CL, Howroyd P, Cattley RC, Corton JC 2004. Role of the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor α (PPARα) in responses to trichloroethylene and metabolites, trichloroacetate and dichloroacetate in mouse liver Toxicology 203:83–98.15363585 Find this article online
53. Lewitt MS, Brismar K, Wang J, Wivall-Helleryd IL, Sindelar P, Gonzalez FJ, et al. 2001. Responses of insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-I and IGF-binding proteins to nutritional status in peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-α knockout mice Growth Horm IGF Res 11:303–313.11735249 Find this article online
54. Liu K, Xu L, Berger JP, Macnaul KL, Zhou G, Doebber TW, et al. 2005. Discovery of a novel series of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor α/γ dual agonists for the treatment of type 2 diabetes and dyslipidemia J Med Chem 48:2262–2265.15801817 Find this article online
55. Liu Z, Uesaka T, Watanabe H, Kato N 2001. High fat diet enhances colonic cell proliferation and carcinogenesis in rats by elevating serum leptin Int J Oncol 19:1009–1014.11605002 Find this article online
56. Macdonald N, Chevalier S, Tonge R, Davison M, Rowlinson R, Young J, et al. 2001. Quantitative proteomic analysis of mouse liver response to the peroxisome proliferator diethyl-hexylphthalate (DEHP) Arch Toxicol 75:415–424.11693183 Find this article online
57. Maloney EK, Waxman DJ 1999. trans-Activation of PPARalpha and PPARγ by structurally diverse environmental chemicals Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 161(2):209–218.10581215 Find this article online
58. Marsman DS, Cattley RC, Conway JG, Popp JA 1988. Relationship of hepatic peroxisome proliferation and replicative DNA synthesis to the hepatocarcinogenicity of the peroxisome proliferators di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate and [4-chloro-6-(2,3-xylidino)-2-pyrimidinyl​thio]acetic acid (Wy-14,643) in rats Cancer Res 48:6739–6744.3180084 Find this article online
59. Meyer K, Lee JS, Dyck PA, Cao WQ, Rao MS, Thorgeirsson SS, et al. 2003. Molecular profiling of hepatocellular carcinomas developing spontaneously in acyl-CoA oxidase deficient mice: comparison with liver tumors induced in wild-type mice by a peroxisome proliferator and a genotoxic carcinogen Carcinogenesis 24:975–984.12771043 Find this article online
60. Michalik L, Desvergne B, Dreyer C, Gavillet M, Laurini RN, Wahli W 2002. PPAR expression and function during vertebrate development Int J Dev Biol 46:105–114.11902671 Find this article online
61. Michalik L, Desvergne B, Tan NS, Basu-Modak S, Escher P, Rieusset J, et al. 2001. Impaired skin wound healing in peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor (PPAR)α and PPARβ mutant mice J Cell Biol 154:799–814.11514592 Find this article online
62. Miller RT, Scappino LA, Long SM, Corton JC 2001. Role of thyroid hormones in hepatic effects of peroxisome proliferators Toxicol Pathol 29:149–155.11215679 Find this article online
63. Moennikes O, Stahl S, Bannasch P, Buchmann A, Schwarz M 2003. WY-14,643-mediated promotion of hepatocarcinogenesis in connexin32-wild-type and connexin32-null mice Carcinogenesis 24:1561–1565.12819187 Find this article online
64. Moller DE, Berger JP 2003. Role of PPARs in the regulation of obesity-related insulin sensitivity and inflammation Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 27(suppl 3):S17–S21.14704738 Find this article online
65. Muoio DM, Way JM, Tanner CJ, Winegar DA, Kliewer SA, Houmard JA, et al. 2002. Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-α regulates fatty acid utilization in primary human skeletal muscle cells Diabetes 51:901–909.11916905 Find this article online
66. Nakajima T, Kamijo Y, Usuda N, Liang Y, Fukushima Y, Kametani K, et al. 2000. Sex-dependent regulation of hepatic peroxisome proliferation in mice by trichloroethylene via peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor α (PPARα) Carcinogenesis 21:677–682.10753203 Find this article online
67. Nohammer C, Brunner F, Wolkart G, Staber PB, Steyrer E, Gonzalez FJ, et al. 2003. Myocardial dysfunction and male mortality in peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha knockout mice overexpressing lipoprotein lipase in muscle Lab Invest 83:259–269.12594240 Find this article online
68. O’Brien ML, Twaroski TP, Cunningham ML, Glauert HP, Spear BT 2001. Effects of peroxisome proliferators on antioxidant enzymes and antioxidant vitamins in rats and hamsters Toxicol Sci 60:271–278.11248139 Find this article online
69. Pan DA, Mater MK, Thelen AP, Peters JM, Gonzalez FJ, Jump DB 2000. Evidence against the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor α (PPARα) as the mediator for polyunsaturated fatty acid suppression of hepatic l-pyruvate kinase gene transcription J Lipid Res 41:742–751.10787435 Find this article online
70. Parks LG, Ostby JS, Lambright CR, Abbott BD, Klinefelter GR, Barlow NJ, et al. 2000. The plasticizer diethylhexyl phthalate induces malformations by decreasing fetal testosterone synthesis during sexual differentiation in the male rat Toxicol Sci 58:339–349.11099646 Find this article online
71. Parzefall W, Berger W, Kainzbauer E, Teufelhofer O, Schulte-Hermann R, Thurman RG 2001. Peroxisome proliferators do not increase DNA synthesis in purified rat hepatocytes Carcinogenesis 22:519–523.11238195 Find this article online
72. Peters JM, Rusyn I, Rose ML, Gonzalez FJ, Thurman RG 2000. Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha is restricted to hepatic parenchymal cells, not Kupffer cells: implications for the mechanism of action of peroxisome proliferators in hepatocarcinogenesis Carcinogenesis 21:823–826.10753222 Find this article online
73. Petros JA, Baumann AK, Ruiz-Pesini E, Amin MB, Sun CQ, Hall J, et al. 2005. mtDNA mutations increase tumorigenicity in prostate cancer Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:719–724.15647368 Find this article online
74. Poirier H, Niot I, Monnot MC, Braissant O, Meunier-Durmort C, Costet P, et al. 2001. Differential involvement of peroxisome-proliferator-activated receptors α and δ in fibrate and fatty-acid-mediated inductions of the gene encoding liver fatty-acid-binding protein in the liver and the small intestine Biochem J 355:481–488.11284737 Find this article online
75. Polyak K, Li Y, Zhu H, Lengauer C, Willson JK, Markowitz SD, et al. 1998. Somatic mutations of the mitochondrial genome in human colorectal tumours Nat Genet 20:291–293.9806551 Find this article online
76. Poole M, Bridgers K, Alexson SE, Corton JC 2001. Altered expression of the carboxylesterases ES-4 and ES-10 by peroxisome proliferator chemicals Toxicology 165:109–119.11522369 Find this article online
77. Reddy JK, Rao MS 1989. Oxidative DNA damage caused by persistent peroxisome proliferation: its role in hepatocarcinogenesis Mutat Res 214:63–68.2671702 Find this article online
78. Ring JA, Ghabrial H, Ching MS, Smallwood RA, Morgan DJ 1999. Fetal hepatic drug elimination Pharmacol Ther 84:429–445.10665839 Find this article online
79. Ripp SL, Falkner KC, Pendleton ML, Tamasi V, Prough RA 2003. Regulation of CYP2C11 by dehydroepiandrosterone and peroxisome proliferators: identification of the negative regulatory region of the gene Mol Pharmacol 64:113–122.12815167 Find this article online
80. Roberts RA, Chevalier S, Hasmall SC, James NH, Cosulich SC, Macdonald N 2002. PPAR α and the regulation of cell division and apoptosis Toxicology 181–182:167–170. Find this article online
81. Robitaille J, Brouillette C, Houde A, Lemieux S, Perusse L, Tchernof A, et al. 2004. Association between the PPARalpha-L162V polymorphism and components of the metabolic syndrome J Hum Genet 49:482–489.15309680 Find this article online
82. Rusyn I, Kadiiska MB, Dikalova A, Kono H, Yin M, Tsuchiya K, et al. 2001. Phthalates rapidly increase production of reactive oxygen species in vivo: role of Kupffer cells Mol Pharmacol 59:744–750.11259618 Find this article online
83. Rusyn I, Rose ML, Bojes HK, Thurman RG 2000. Novel role of oxidants in the molecular mechanism of action of peroxisome proliferators Antioxid Redox Signal 2:607–621.11229371 Find this article online
84. Sandhu MS, Dunger DB, Giovannucci EL 2002. Insulin, insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I), IGF binding proteins, their biologic interactions, and colorectal cancer J Natl Cancer Inst 94:972–980.12096082 Find this article online
85. Scatena R, Bottoni P, Vincenzoni F, Messana I, Martorana GE, Nocca G, et al. 2003. Bezafibrate induces a mitochondrial derangement in human cell lines: a PPAR-independent mechanism for a peroxisome proliferator Chem Res Toxicol 16:1440–1447.14615970 Find this article online
86. Seree E, Villard PH, Pascussi JM, Pineau T, Maurel P, Nguyen QB, et al. 2004. Evidence for a new human CYP1A1 regulation pathway involving PPAR-α and 2 PPRE sites Gastroenterology 127:1436–1445.15521013 Find this article online
87. Shankar K, Vaidya VS, Corton JC, Bucci TJ, Liu J, Waalkes MP, et al. 2003. Activation of PPAR-α in streptozotocin-induced diabetes is essential for resistance against acetaminophen toxicity FASEB J 17:1748–1750.12958197 Find this article online
88. Simpson AE, Brammar WJ, Pratten MK, Cockcroft N, Elcombe CR 1996. Placental transfer of the hypolipidemic drug, clofibrate, induces CYP4A expression in 18.5-day fetal rats Drug Metab Dispos 24:547–554.8723735 Find this article online
89. Simpson AE, Brammar WJ, Pratten MK, Elcombe CR 1995. Translactational induction of CYP4A expression in 10.5-day neonatal rats by the hypolipidemic drug clofibrate Biochem Pharmacol 50:2021–2032.8849329 Find this article online
90. Sinal CJ, Yoon M, Gonzalez FJ 2001. Antagonism of the actions of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-α by bile acids J Biol Chem 276:47154–47162.11606578 Find this article online
91. Thompson HJ, Jiang W, Zhu Z 1999. Mechanisms by which energy restriction inhibits carcinogenesis Adv Exp Med Biol 470:77–84.10709676 Find this article online
92. U.S. EPA 2001. Trichloroethylene Health Risk Assessment: Synthesis and Characterization. External Review Draft. EPA/600/P-01/002A. Washington, DC:U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development
93. Valles EG, Laughter AR, Dunn CS, Cannelle S, Swanson CL, Cattley RC, et al. 2003. Role of the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor α in responses to diisononyl phthalate Toxicology 191:211–225.12965124 Find this article online
94. Vohl MC, Lepage P, Gaudet D, Brewer CG, Betard C, Perron P, et al. 2000. Molecular scanning of the human PPARa gene: association of the L162v mutation with hyperapobetalipo-proteinemia J Lipid Res 41:945–952.10828087 Find this article online
95. Vosper H, Khoudoli GA, Graham TL, Palmer CN 2002. Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor agonists, hyperlipidaemia, and atherosclerosis Pharmacol Ther 95:47–62.12163127 Find this article online
96. Walgren JE, Kurtz DT, McMillan JM 2000a. The effect of the trichloroethylene metabolites trichloroacetate and dichloroacetate on peroxisome proliferation and DNA synthesis in cultured human hepatocytes Cell Biol Toxicol 16:257–273.11101007 Find this article online
97. Walgren JE, Kurtz DT, McMillan JM 2000b. Expression of PPARα in human hepatocytes and activation by trichloroacetate and dichloroacetate Res Commun Mol Pathol Pharmacol 108:116–132.11758968 Find this article online
98. Wartenberg D, Reyner D, Scott CS 2000. Trichloroethylene and cancer: epidemiologic evidence Environ Health Perspect 108(suppl 2):161–176.10807550 Find this article online
99. Watanabe K, Fujii H, Takahashi T, Kodama M, Aizawa Y, Ohta Y, et al. 2000. Constitutive regulation of cardiac fatty acid metabolism through peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor α associated with age-dependent cardiac toxicity J Biol Chem 275:22293–22299.10801788 Find this article online
100. Xu S, Zhu BT, Turan V, Rusyn I, Thurman R, Peters JM, et al. 2001. PPARα-dependent induction of liver microsomal esterification of estradiol and testosterone by a prototypical peroxisome proliferator Endocrinology 142:3554–3557.11459802 Find this article online
101. Youssef J, Badr M 2002. Enhanced hepatocarcinogenicity due to agonists of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors in senescent rats: role of peroxisome proliferation, cell proliferation, and apoptosis Sci World J 2:1491–1500. Find this article online
102. Youssef JA, Bouziane M, Badr MZ 2003. Age-dependent effects of nongenotoxic hepatocarcinogens on liver apoptosis in vivo Mech Ageing Dev 124:333–340.12663131 Find this article online
103. Zhou S, Wallace KB 1999. The effect of peroxisome proliferators on mitochondrial bioenergetics Toxicol Sci 48:82–89.10330687 Find this article online
104. Zhou YC, Davey HW, McLachlan MJ, Xie T, Waxman DJ 2002. Elevated basal expression of liver peroxisomal beta-oxidation enzymes and CYP4A microsomal fatty acid omega-hydroxylase in STAT5b(−/−) mice: cross-talk in vivo between peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor and signal transducer and activator of transcription signaling pathways Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 182:1–10.12127257 Find this article online
105. Zhou YC, Waxman DJ 1998. Activation of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors by chlorinated hydrocarbons and endogenous steroids Environ Health Perspect 106(suppl 4):983–988.9703482 Find this article online
106. Zhou YC, Waxman DJ 1999. Cross-talk between janus kinase-signal transducer and activator of transcription (JAK-STAT) and peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha (PPARα) signaling pathways. Growth hormone inhibition of PPARalpha transcriptional activity mediated by stat5b J Biol Chem 274(5):2672–2681.9915797 Find this article online
107. Zhu Y, Qi C, Jain S, Le Beau MM, Espinosa R III, Atkins GB, et al. 1999. Amplification and overexpression of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor binding protein (PBP/PPARBP) gene in breast cancer Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96:10848–10853.10485914 Find this article online