Soils, Sediments and Water 2004
Detection of Potential Estrogenic Endocrine Disruptor Chemicals Using The LUMI-Cell ERRecombinant Bioassay. John D. Gordon, Andrew C. Chu, Charlotte L. Taylor, George C. Clark,
Mick D. Chu, Xenobiotic Detection Systems Inc., and Michael S. Denison, Univ. of California,
Davis. A class of compounds knows as Endocrine Disruptor Chemicals (EDCs), have beenshown to have tremendous adverse effects on human and wild life populations. The association
between the exposure, and bioaccumulation in the food chain, of EDCs has raised concern
worldwide. Identification of EDCs requires a relevant bioassay, which can both detect thesechemicals, and provide a relevant estimate of their endocrine disrupting potency. XenobioticDetection System (XDS) Inc. developed the LUMI-CELL ER bioassay in order to detect EDCs
using a high-throughput bioassay system. To detect EDCs, BG-1 cells were stably transfectedwith an estrogen-responsive luciferase reporter gene plasmid (pGudLuc7ere). The resulting cellline responds to estrogenic chemicals in a time-, dose dependent- and chemical-specific mannerwith the induction of luciferase gene expression. XDS’s LUMI-CELL ER bioassay system has
tested over 110 chemicals, 53 of these chemicals were recommended by ICCVAM for validationof ER binding and transcriptional activation. Twenty-Eight of the 53 chemicals recommended
by ICCVAM have historical data for a positive response, and all of these 28 compounds
demonstrated estrogenic activity using the LUMI-CELL ER bioassay. Out of the 110
chemicals tested, 69 demonstrated estrogenic activity, while 41 showed no activity. Of the 57
chemicals tested, which were tested as unknowns, 30 were found to possess’ estrogenic activity,
while 27 showed no activity. The LUMI-CELL ER bioassay has an EC50 detection of
1.48x10-11 for β-estradiol. This level of detection is far lower than any limit likely to be imposedby any regulatory agency. This data clearly demonstrates that XDS’s LUMI-CELL ER highthroughput bioassay system is a fast, reliable, and relatively inexpensive method for detection ofEDCs, meeting many of the requirements mandated by the EPA and ICCVAMs Tier I(screening) requirements for EDC detection assays. Supported by NIEHS SBIR grant ES1053303, and Superfund Basic Research Grant ES04699.
Author One:John D. Gordon
Xenobiotic Detection Systems Inc.
1601 E. Geer St., Suite S
Durham, NC 27612
Tel: 919-688-4804
FAX: 919-688-4404
johngordon@dioxins.com

Author Two: Andrew C. Chu
Xenobiotic Detection Systems Inc.
1601 E. Geer St., Suite S
Durham, NC 27612
Tel: 919-688-4804
FAX: 919-688-4404
andrewchu@dioxins.com
Author Three: Charlotte L. Taylor
Xenobiotic Detection Systems Inc.
1601 E. Geer St., Suite SPresenting Author: John D. Gordon
Presentation Preference: either
If platform presentation, please putin either 1. Hazard exposure and risk
assessment or 2. Innovativetechnologies

Durham, NC 27612
Tel: 919-688-4804
FAX: 919-688-4404
ctaylor@dioxins.com
Author Four: George C. Clark
Xenobiotic Detection Systems Inc.
1601 E. Geer St., Suite S
Durham, NC 27612
Tel: 919-688-4804
FAX: 919-688-4404
georgeclark@dioxins.com
Author Five: Mick Chu
Xenobiotic Detection Systems Inc.
1601 E. Geer St., Suite S
Durham, NC 27612
Tel: 919-688-4804FAX: 919-688-4404
mickchu@dioxins.com
Author Six:

Michael S. Denison
University of California, Davis
Department of Environmental Toxicology
4241 Meyer Hall
Davis, CA 95616
Tel: 530-752-3879
FAX: 530-752-3394
msdenison@ucdavis.edu