58
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Multiomics reveal non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in rats following chronic exposure to an ultra-low dose of Roundup herbicide

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The impairment of liver function by low environmentally relevant doses of glyphosate-based herbicides (GBH) is still a debatable and unresolved matter. Previously we have shown that rats administered for 2 years with 0.1 ppb (50 ng/L glyphosate equivalent dilution; 4 ng/kg body weight/day daily intake) of a Roundup GBH formulation showed signs of enhanced liver injury as indicated by anatomorphological, blood/urine biochemical changes and transcriptome profiling. Here we present a multiomic study combining metabolome and proteome liver analyses to obtain further insight into the Roundup-induced pathology. Proteins significantly disturbed (214 out of 1906 detected, q < 0.05) were involved in organonitrogen metabolism and fatty acid β-oxidation. Proteome disturbances reflected peroxisomal proliferation, steatosis and necrosis. The metabolome analysis (55 metabolites altered out of 673 detected, p < 0.05) confirmed lipotoxic conditions and oxidative stress by showing an activation of glutathione and ascorbate free radical scavenger systems. Additionally, we found metabolite alterations associated with hallmarks of hepatotoxicity such as γ-glutamyl dipeptides, acylcarnitines, and proline derivatives. Overall, metabolome and proteome disturbances showed a substantial overlap with biomarkers of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and its progression to steatohepatosis and thus confirm liver functional dysfunction resulting from chronic ultra-low dose GBH exposure.

          Related collections

          Most cited references39

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Do multiple outcome measures require p-value adjustment?

          Background Readers may question the interpretation of findings in clinical trials when multiple outcome measures are used without adjustment of the p-value. This question arises because of the increased risk of Type I errors (findings of false "significance") when multiple simultaneous hypotheses are tested at set p-values. The primary aim of this study was to estimate the need to make appropriate p-value adjustments in clinical trials to compensate for a possible increased risk in committing Type I errors when multiple outcome measures are used. Discussion The classicists believe that the chance of finding at least one test statistically significant due to chance and incorrectly declaring a difference increases as the number of comparisons increases. The rationalists have the following objections to that theory: 1) P-value adjustments are calculated based on how many tests are to be considered, and that number has been defined arbitrarily and variably; 2) P-value adjustments reduce the chance of making type I errors, but they increase the chance of making type II errors or needing to increase the sample size. Summary Readers should balance a study's statistical significance with the magnitude of effect, the quality of the study and with findings from other studies. Researchers facing multiple outcome measures might want to either select a primary outcome measure or use a global assessment measure, rather than adjusting the p-value.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Organization of GC/MS and LC/MS metabolomics data into chemical libraries

            Background Metabolomics experiments involve generating and comparing small molecule (metabolite) profiles from complex mixture samples to identify those metabolites that are modulated in altered states (e.g., disease, drug treatment, toxin exposure). One non-targeted metabolomics approach attempts to identify and interrogate all small molecules in a sample using GC or LC separation followed by MS or MSn detection. Analysis of the resulting large, multifaceted data sets to rapidly and accurately identify the metabolites is a challenging task that relies on the availability of chemical libraries of metabolite spectral signatures. A method for analyzing spectrometry data to identify and Qu antify I ndividual C omponents in a S ample, (QUICS), enables generation of chemical library entries from known standards and, importantly, from unknown metabolites present in experimental samples but without a corresponding library entry. This method accounts for all ions in a sample spectrum, performs library matches, and allows review of the data to quality check library entries. The QUICS method identifies ions related to any given metabolite by correlating ion data across the complete set of experimental samples, thus revealing subtle spectral trends that may not be evident when viewing individual samples and are likely to be indicative of the presence of one or more otherwise obscured metabolites. Results LC-MS/MS or GC-MS data from 33 liver samples were analyzed simultaneously which exploited the inherent biological diversity of the samples and the largely non-covariant chemical nature of the metabolites when viewed over multiple samples. Ions were partitioned by both retention time (RT) and covariance which grouped ions from a single common underlying metabolite. This approach benefitted from using mass, time and intensity data in aggregate over the entire sample set to reject outliers and noise thereby producing higher quality chemical identities. The aggregated data was matched to reference chemical libraries to aid in identifying the ion set as a known metabolite or as a new unknown biochemical to be added to the library. Conclusion The QUICS methodology enabled rapid, in-depth evaluation of all possible metabolites (known and unknown) within a set of samples to identify the metabolites and, for those that did not have an entry in the reference library, to create a library entry to identify that metabolite in future studies.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Concerns over use of glyphosate-based herbicides and risks associated with exposures: a consensus statement

              The broad-spectrum herbicide glyphosate (common trade name “Roundup”) was first sold to farmers in 1974. Since the late 1970s, the volume of glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs) applied has increased approximately 100-fold. Further increases in the volume applied are likely due to more and higher rates of application in response to the widespread emergence of glyphosate-resistant weeds and new, pre-harvest, dessicant use patterns. GBHs were developed to replace or reduce reliance on herbicides causing well-documented problems associated with drift and crop damage, slipping efficacy, and human health risks. Initial industry toxicity testing suggested that GBHs posed relatively low risks to non-target species, including mammals, leading regulatory authorities worldwide to set high acceptable exposure limits. To accommodate changes in GBH use patterns associated with genetically engineered, herbicide-tolerant crops, regulators have dramatically increased tolerance levels in maize, oilseed (soybeans and canola), and alfalfa crops and related livestock feeds. Animal and epidemiology studies published in the last decade, however, point to the need for a fresh look at glyphosate toxicity. Furthermore, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer recently concluded that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans.” In response to changing GBH use patterns and advances in scientific understanding of their potential hazards, we have produced a Statement of Concern drawing on emerging science relevant to the safety of GBHs. Our Statement of Concern considers current published literature describing GBH uses, mechanisms of action, toxicity in laboratory animals, and epidemiological studies. It also examines the derivation of current human safety standards. We conclude that: (1) GBHs are the most heavily applied herbicide in the world and usage continues to rise; (2) Worldwide, GBHs often contaminate drinking water sources, precipitation, and air, especially in agricultural regions; (3) The half-life of glyphosate in water and soil is longer than previously recognized; (4) Glyphosate and its metabolites are widely present in the global soybean supply; (5) Human exposures to GBHs are rising; (6) Glyphosate is now authoritatively classified as a probable human carcinogen; (7) Regulatory estimates of tolerable daily intakes for glyphosate in the United States and European Union are based on outdated science. We offer a series of recommendations related to the need for new investments in epidemiological studies, biomonitoring, and toxicology studies that draw on the principles of endocrinology to determine whether the effects of GBHs are due to endocrine disrupting activities. We suggest that common commercial formulations of GBHs should be prioritized for inclusion in government-led toxicology testing programs such as the U.S. National Toxicology Program, as well as for biomonitoring as conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Sci Rep
                Sci Rep
                Scientific Reports
                Nature Publishing Group
                2045-2322
                09 January 2017
                2017
                : 7
                : 39328
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Gene Expression and Therapy Group, King’s College London, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, Department of Medical and Molecular Genetics, 8th Floor, Tower Wing, Guy’s Hospital, Great Maze Pond , London SE1 9RT, United Kingdom
                [2 ]Proteomics Facility, King’s College London, Institute of Psychiatry , London SE5 8AF, United Kingdom
                [3 ]University of Caen, Institute of Biology, EA 2608 and Risk Pole, MRSH-CNRS, Esplanade de la Paix, University of Caen , Caen 14032, Cedex, France
                Author notes
                Article
                srep39328
                10.1038/srep39328
                5220358
                28067231
                011b3d69-a147-4402-a3e5-43160f8e26bb
                Copyright © 2017, The Author(s)

                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if the material is not included under the Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to reproduce the material. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History
                : 22 July 2016
                : 22 November 2016
                Categories
                Article

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                171
                14
                113
                0
                2
                Smart Citations
                This paper has 1 correction
                This paper has 1 erratum
                171
                14
                113
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content181

                Cited by64

                Most referenced authors794