|
Table 1 showed us that there can be remarkable
physiological similarities between prenatal DES exposure, AIS and Gonadal
Dysgenesis. There is a very logical explanation for this. Lets compare things
at the cellular level. Note: Both of the quotes below regarding
PAIS and Partial Gonadal dysgenesis come from John Hopkins. Syndromes of Abnormal Sex Differentiation: A guide for
patients and their families (a Johns Hopkins document, see specific
syndromes of sex differentiation):
|
|
PAIS
|
Partial
Gonadal Dysgenesis
|
|
"PAIS also affects
46,XY individuals. PAIS patients are born with ambiguous external genitalia
due to their partial inability to respond to androgens. "Note:
Once again testosterone is an androgen.
|
"Partial
Gonadal Dysgenesis also affects 46,XY individuals, and this condition is
characterized by partial testes determination usually accompanied by ambiguous
external genitalia at birth. Affected patients may have a combination of
Wolffian and Mullerian duct development. The combination of both Wolffian
and Mullerian duct development, along with ambiguity of the external structures,
indicates that the testes produced more androgens and MIS than those
of Complete Gonadal Dysgenesis patients, but not as much as would be seen
in normal male development."
|
|
Now look
at what DES does at the cellular level and to testosterone levels.
|
|
In studies done on the rat
prostate low doses of DES enhance androgen receptor binding but high
doses inhibit androgen receptor binding 16).
"At high dosage, on the other
hand, DES produced an opposite effect, inducing hypospadius and
inhibiting prostate growth and AR binding activity."
DES lowers the over all testosterone levels 27): "DES inhibits luteinizing
hormone secretion by the pituitary, there by inhibiting testosterone
secretion." Which is why it was used in the treatment of prostate
cancer.
The presence of testosterone directly affects androgen
receptors 167):
"In analogy with animal studies
showing strong activational effects of androgens on nuclear AR-ir,
the present data suggest that nuclear AR-ir in the human MBC is
dependent on the presence or absence of circulating levels of androgen."
Also see 150):
"The induction of major abnormalities
in rats treated with DES (10 µg) was coincident with loss
of androgen receptor immunoexpression in affected tissues."
And 153):
"In DES-treated rats, androgen
receptor (AR) immunoexpression was virtually absent from all affected
tissues and the testis, whereas AR expression in controls was intense
in epithelial and stromal cells. The DES-induced change in AR immunoexpression
was confirmed by Western analysis for the testis."
Note: on the next page (Question) I do some calculations
which show that in some cases pregnant moms were given more DES than
is necessary to chemically neuter an adult human male (up to 11
times as much).
Other endocrine disrupting chemicals such as DDT also inhibits
AR binding 152):
”Persistent DDT metabolite p,p'-DDE
is a potent androgen receptor antagonist.”
|
|
If DES
can inhibit androgen receptor binding or otherwise interfere with the ability
of a cells androgen receptors to bind with androgen molecules, how is this
different from a chemically induced equivallent of PAIS? If DES can substantially
lower testosterone levels then does this not equate to the equivallent of
chemically induced partial gonadal dysgenesis? Is it any wonder that the
physiological effects of DES exposure are so close to those of AIS and Gonadal
Dysgenesis?
|
| It is also important
to note that DES binds to and activates a cell’s estrogen receptors. In
addition some people may be more resilient to the effects of estrogenic
chemicals than others 175).
|
| "A third
intriguing concept from the paper by Steinmetz et al. is that there
are genetic differences in susceptibility to estrogens including BPA;
Fischer 344 rats are very sensitive, whereas Sprague-Dawley rats
are resistant (16). The mechanism for this differential effect is unclear
from the data available. The authors speculate that subpopulations
of humans may likewise be more sensitive to BPA and other environmental
estrogens than the population at large."
193): "The evidence is that there
can be as much as a 1,000-fold, or greater, range of responses to
these chemicals in different strains of mice. The regulatory default
assumption of a ten-fold correction or safety factor for genetic variability
is completely out of touch with the data," says Frederick vom Saal,
a professor of biology at the University of Missouri-Columbia."
|