↓ Skip to main content

Man is not a big rat: concerns with traditional human risk assessment of phthalates based on their anti-androgenic effects observed in the rat foetus

Overview of attention for article published in Basic and Clinical Andrology, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Man is not a big rat: concerns with traditional human risk assessment of phthalates based on their anti-androgenic effects observed in the rat foetus
Published in
Basic and Clinical Andrology, September 2014
DOI 10.1186/2051-4190-24-14
Pubmed ID
Authors

René Habert, Gabriel Livera, Virginie Rouiller-Fabre

Abstract

Phthalates provide one of the most documented example evidencing how much we must be cautious when using the traditional paradigm based on extrapolation of experimental data from rodent studies for human health risk assessment of endocrine disruptors (EDs). Since foetal testis is known as one of the most sensitive targets of EDs, phthalate risk assessment is routinely based on the capacity of such compounds to decrease testosterone production by the testis or to impair masculinization in the rat during foetal life. In this paper, the well-established inhibiting effects of phthalates of the foetal Leydig cells function in the rat are briefly reviewed. Then, data obtained in humans and other species are carefully analysed. Already in January 2009, using the organotypic culture system named Fetal Testis Assay (FeTA) that we developed, we reported that phthalates might not affect testosterone production in human foetal testes. Several recent experimental studies using xenografts confirm the absence of detectable anti-androgenic effect of phthalates in the human foetal testes. Epidemiological studies led to contradictory results. Altogether, these findings suggest that phthalates effects on foetal Leydig cells are largely species-specific. Consequently, the phthalate threshold doses that disturb foetal steroidogenesis in rat testes and that are presently used to define the acceptable daily intake levels for human health protection must be questioned. This does not mean that phthalates are safe because these compounds have many deleterious effects upon germ cell development that may be common to the different studied species including human. More generally, the identification of common molecular, cellular or/and phenotypic targets in rat and human testes should precede the choice of the toxicological endpoint in rat to accurately assess the safety threshold of any ED in humans.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 12%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Student > Master 2 8%
Other 5 19%
Unknown 6 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 19%
Environmental Science 3 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 8%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 6 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 January 2016.
All research outputs
#17,285,668
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Basic and Clinical Andrology
#78
of 161 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#148,669
of 248,616 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Basic and Clinical Andrology
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 161 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.4. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 248,616 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them