Accepted Manuscript
LC-MS/MS based profiling and dynamic modelling of the steroidogenesis pathway in adrenocarcinoma H295R cells
SIN 007-2333
Toxicology in Vitro
TİV
-
Kareem Eldin Mohammed Ahmed, Håvard G. Frøysa, Odd André Karlsen, Jørn V. Sagen, Gunnar Mellgren, Steven Verhaegen, Erik Ropstad, Anders Goksøyr, Ralf Kellmann
| PII: | S0887-2333(18)30346-1 |
| DOI: | doi: 10.1016/j.tiv.2018.07.002 |
| Reference: | TIV 4322 |
| To appear in: | Toxicology in Vitro |
| Received date: | 5 December 2017 |
| Revised date: | 22 May 2018 |
| Accepted date: | 6 July 2018 |
Please cite this article as: Kareem Eldin Mohammed Ahmed, Håvard G. Frøysa, Odd André Karlsen, Jørn V. Sagen, Gunnar Mellgren, Steven Verhaegen, Erik Ropstad, Anders Goksøyr, Ralf Kellmann , LC-MS/MS based profiling and dynamic modelling of the steroidogenesis pathway in adrenocarcinoma H295R cells. Tiv (2018), doi:10.1016/ j.tiv.2018.07.002
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
LC-MS/MS based profiling and dynamic modelling of the steroidogenesis pathway in adrenocarcinoma H295R cells
Kareem Eldin Mohammed Ahmed1,4, Håvard G Frøysa2, +, Odd André Karlsen1, Jørn V. Sagen3,4, Gunnar Mellgren3,4, Steven Verhaegen5, Erik Ropstad5, Anders Goksøyr1 and Ralf Kellmann3*
1. Department of Biological sciences, University of Bergen, P.O. Box 7803, N-5020 Bergen, Norway.
2. Department of Mathematics, University of Bergen, P.O. Box 7803, N-5020 Bergen, Norway.
3. Hormone Laboratory, Haukeland University Hospital, N-5021 Bergen, Norway.
4. Department of Clinical Science, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway, P. O. box 7804, 5020 Bergen, Norway
5. Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Biosciences, Department of Production Animal Clinical Sciences, Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU) P.O. Box 8146 Dep. N-0033 Oslo, Norway # Both authors contributed equally to the study.
*Corresponding Author
ACCEPTED MANU Selenia … we Never.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Abstract
Endocrine disrupting chemicals have been reported to exert effects directly on enzymes involved in steroid biosynthesis. Here, we present a new liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) method for profiling the steroid metabolome of H295R human adrenocarcinoma cells. Our method can simultaneously analyse 19 precursors, intermediates and end-products, representing the adrenal steroid biosynthesis pathway. In order to obtain better insights into the processes of steroidogenesis, we investigated the dose-response relationship of forskolin, an activator of adeylate cyclase, on steroid production in H295R cells. We observed that 1.5 uM forskolin stimulated steroid production at approximately 50% of the maximum rate for most steroids. Hence, we studied the time course for steroid synthesis over 72 hours in H295R cells that were stimulated with forskolin. At 24 hours, we observed a peak in steroid levels for the intermediate metabolites, such as progesterone and pregnenolone, while end-products such as testosterone and cortisol continued to increase until 72 hours. Finally, we show how global data provide a unique basis to develop a comprehensive, dynamic model for steroidogenesis using first order kinetics. The timeline data made it possible to estimate all reaction rate constants of the network. We propose this method as a unique and sensitive screening tool to identify effects on adrenal steroidogenesis by endocrine disrupting compounds.
Keywords:
H295R human adrenocarcinoma cells
Steroidogenesis
LC-MS/MS method
Dynamical model
Authors Emails:
Kareem Eldin Mohammed Ahmed: Kareem.Ahmed@uib.no Håvard G Frøysa: Havard.Froysa@uib.no
Odd André Karlsen: odd.karlsen@uib.no
Jørn V. Sagen: jorn.vegard.sagen@helse-bergen.no
Gunnar Mellgren: Gunnar.Mellgren@uib.no
Steven Verhaegen: steven.verhaegen@nmbu.no Erik Ropstad: erik.ropstad@nmbu.no Anders Goksøyr: anders.goksoyr@uib.no
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Ralf Kellmann: ralf.kellmann@uib.no
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Introduction
Endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) are chemicals which can interfere with hormonal systems of animals and humans (WHO, 2012). Production and use of such chemicals inevitably leads to their release as environmental contaminants (Fox, 2004; Toppari et al., 1996). Earlier studies have been focusing on the actions of EDCs on hormone receptors such as estrogen receptor (ER) and androgen receptor (AR). However, it has been established that EDCs can exert effects directly on enzymes involved in steroid biosynthesis and metabolism (Cai et al., 1995). In order to screen the large number of chemicals being produced for potential endocrine disrupting effects, programs such as REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals) of the European Commission and the United State Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ‘s EDSP (Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program) were implemented (Odermatt et al., 2016).
The EDSP program consists of a battery of in vitro and in vivo assays that assess the capability of xenobiotic compounds to act as agonists or antagonists to the ER, AR and steroido genesis (O’Connor et al., 2002). Assays targeting aspects of female and male steroidogenesis exist, but are expensive and time consuming. The rat uterotropic assay utilizes the uterine weight as parameter for evaluating estrogenic activity of compounds (Kanno et al., 2001; Tomoya et al., 2003), and the minced testis assay measures the production of testosterone from testicular tissue which is harvested and incubated in cultured media (Charles, 2004). Hence, there is a need for more accurate, high throughput and less expensive assays (Odermatt et al., 2016). As an alternative, many researchers use cell culture systems such as bovine adrenocortical primary cells (Cheng and Hornsby, 1992), the mouse Y1 cell line or the human H295R cell line (Cohen et al., 1957; Gazdar et al., 1990) to study steroid biosynthesis. The H295R cell model has been proposed as an alternative assay to be used by EPA for screening programs to investigate the effect of pesticides and other chemicals on the human population (Harvey and Everett, 2003; Hecker et al., 2006a; Hilscherova et al., 2004; Zhang et al., 2005), and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has developed a test guideline for use of this assay (guideline 456, (OECD, 2011)).
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
The H295R cell line originated from the parent NCI-H295 cell line, which was established from excised adrenocortical carcinoma (Gazdar et al., 1990). Previous analysis showed that H295R cells have all of the adrenocortical enzyme systems which give them the capacity to produce 30 different steroids (Bird et al., 1996; Gazdar et al., 1990; Rainey et al., 1994, 1993). In adrenal steroidogenesis, physiological stimulation of the steroidogenesis pathway occurs by binding of adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) to the ACTH receptor, initiating a cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP)-dependent response. However, H295R cells express low levels of the ACTH receptor. This leads to low response or even a complete resistance to ACTH stimulation (Mountjoy et al., 1994). Therefore, stimulation of the cAMP-pathway in these cells can be performed using a cAMP- elevating agent such as forskolin (Rainey et al., 1993). Forskolin stimulation of H295R cells results in a rapid up-regulation of cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes and subsequent steroid production (Denner et al., 1996; Weisser et al., 2016).
Steroids are commonly measured using immunological approaches such as radioimmuno assays (RIA), enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA), and fluoro immunoassays (FIA) (Gracia et al., 2006; Kjærstad et al., 2010; Szécsi et al., 2004). Different steroids have highly similar structures that differ only by their hydroxyl or carbonyl groups, which can cause significant cross-reactivity with specific antibodies (Heald et al., 2006; Hecker et al., 2006b; Middle, 2007; Penning et al., 2010). Moreover, immunoassays are prone to interference by the biological matrix, in particular when measuring steroids at low concentrations (Kushnir et al., 2011). Also, studies have revealed that immunoassays suffer from poor accuracy at low concentrations (Singh, 2008).
The use of liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) can overcome many of the immunoassay deficiencies. By implementing LC-MS/MS methods, multiple analytes can be measured simultaneously during the same run (Rauh, 2010). Moreover, in the last decade newly developed triple quadrupole LC- MS/MS instruments provide a high precision and sensitivity enabling the quantitation of steroids at low concentrations with imprecisions of less than 10% (Faupel-Badger et al., 2010; Hoofnagle and Wener, 2009; Stanczyk et al., 2007; Stenman, 2013).
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
These methods are robust and can be used in a high-throughput environment (Alder et al., 2006; Guo et al., 2006).
In order to improve the interpretation of data from in vitro steroidogenesis assays, mechanistic mathematical models are useful tool (Breen et al., 2011). Such models may be used to assist with estimating the effects of EDCs in H295R cells and their concentration-response behaviour (Breen et al., 2010). In addition, by utilizing these mechanistic models the interpretation of data from H295R steroidogenesis assays could be improved by helping to define mechanisms of action for poorly characterized environmental toxicants (Breen et al., 2011, 2010; Mangelis et al., 2016). Moreover, guided by such mechanistic models more accurate extrapolations of toxic response of low dose exposures can be achieved (Conolly and Lutz, 2004).
Although the OECD guideline 456 only focuses on the production of estradiol and testosterone as endpoints, there is a need for a method that can detect and quantitate all steroids, many of which have physiological importance, in H295R cells (Hecker et al., 2006b; Winther et al., 2013). Here, we have developed an LC-MS/MS-based method to measure the biosynthesis of 19 steroids in H295R cells. Additionally, we have investigated steroid production in relation to time and chemical stimulation with forskolin. Finally, we present a mathematical model for steroid biosynthesis, which take into account this comprehensive overview of the steroidogenesis pathway.
Materials and Methods
H295R cell culturing
The H295R cell line was purchased form American Type Culture Collection (ATCC). Cells were cultured in 75 cm2 flasks in Dulbecco’s modified Eagle medium/HamF12 (DMEM/F12) containing HEPES buffer, l-glutamine and pyridoxine HCl (Gibco, Invitrogen, Paisley, UK). Additional supplements were added to the medium, including 1% insulin, human transferrin and selenous acid (ITS + premix) (BD Biosciences, Bedford, MA) and 5% charcoal stripped fetal bovine serum (F7524, Sigma Aldrich). H295R cells were incubated at 37 ℃ with 5% CO2 in a humidified atmosphere. The medium was changed every 2-3 days and cells passaged at
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
approximately 80% confluence by brief exposure to 0.25% trypsin/0.53 mM EDTA (Gibco, Invitrogen). The cells from passages 4-6 were used in experiments.
Forskolin exposure
After seeding H295R cells for 24 hours in 6 well plates at a cell density of 1.2 x 106 cell per well, fresh medium containing different forskolin concentrations, (0.312 uM, 0.625 uM, 1.25 µM, 2.5 uM, 5 uM, 10 uM, 20 uM) was added to the cells for 48 hours. Each concentration had 6 replicate wells.
Steroid production timeline
H295R cells (1,2 x 10°) were seeded in 6-well plates in 6 replicate wells per treatment condition and incubated for 24 h. Fresh medium containing 1.5 uM forskolin was added after 24 h of incubation and media was collected at 0, 2,4, 6, 12, 24, 36, 48, 72 hours to for analyses.
Cell viability
Cell viability was evaluated using Alamar Blue TM assay (Invitrogen) on the 96-well microplates (VWR, USA). Approximately 50,000 cells were seeded for 24 hours before exposure for 48 hours. DMSO control, 10 uM forskolin exposure was performed in triplicate. The medium was removed and replaced with 100ul of fresh medium for 3 hours at 5 % CO2 at 34 ℃. A PerkinElmer (EnSpire 2300 Multilabel Reader) spectrophotometer was used to read the plates. The absorbance was read at 570nm and 600nm and viability was expressed as percentage of control (medium with 0.25 % DMSO). Triton X-100 (10%) was used as a positive control of cell death.
Steroid-profiling by LC-MS/MS
Sample extraction
Samples of H295R cell medium were extracted using liquid-liquid extraction on a Hamilton Star pipetting robot, and 85 ul of sample was used for analysis in addition to 10ul of internal standard that was added to all samples. Samples were equilibrated for one hour, and then extracted with 850 ul ethylacetate:hexane (80:20). 650 ul organic phase was evaporated under a stream of nitrogen at 45° C, and samples reconstituted with 50 ul 25% methanol.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
LC-MS/MS analysis
LC-MS/MS analysis was carried out on a Waters Xevo TQ-S triple quadrupole mass spectrometer that was coupled to a Waters i-class Acquity UPLC. Ionisation was achieved by electrospray ionisation (ESI) in positive and negative mode. The following LC conditions were used: chromatographic separation was achieved on a Waters Acquity BEH-C18 column (2.1 x 100 mm, 1.7 um particle size, pore-size 130 Å). The column temperature was set at 60° C. Mobile phase A consisted of Milli-Q water with 0,05 % (vol/vol) ammonium hydroxide solution (25%), and mobile phase B consisted of methanolwith 0,5 % (vol/vol) ammonium hydroxide solution (25%). The sample injection volume was 4 ul. Steroid hormones were detected and quantitated by isotope-dilution mass spectrometry by multi-reaction monitoring (MRM). Quantifier and qualifier MRM-transitions are listed in Table 1.
Methanol was used to dissolve all steroid hormones separately before they were added together. The mixture used for the standard curve had concentration of 100 times that of the highest working solution. The standard curve was prepared by serial diluting the mixture 1:4 in methanol and then adding 2 ml of each dilution to 198 ml of H295R growth medium with FBS serum. The final standard curve range is shown in Table 2. The standard curve has six levels for each steroid and a blank control that consist of H295R growth medium with FBS serum.
The internal standard was made of several labelled hormones that were dissolved separately in methanol. Quality control (QC) consist of H295R growth media of stimulated cells. Steroids in the media were measured and each steroid was added to a final concentration corresponding to 0.5, 1.56 and 25% of the highest standard level. The standard curve, internal standard and QCs were stored in -80 ℃.
Our standard curve was run in parallel with a second serum based standard curve, which is fully validated with external quality control program (Methlie et al., 2013).
Table 1 Dynamic model
Obtaining timeline data for the extracellular concentrations steroids enabled us to construct a dynamic model for all the metabolites of steroidogenesis. The model has
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
one compartment where the concentration of each steroid is assumed to be its measured extracellular concentration. A schematic overview of the network considered for modelling is shown in Figure 1, where each box is a measured steroid and each arrow a reaction (flux) with a reaction rate vi. Note that the starting point of the model is pregnenolone.
The model equation for the concentration of e.g. DHEA will then be
dC dt DHEA
EV11 -V 12-V 13
where the different reaction rates vi of the network must be specified. Here, all reaction rates vi of the model are taken to be first-order. Each reaction rate is then given by a rate constant ki and the concentration of its precursor, e.g. v13=k 13CDHEA-
The replicated measurements were averaged to get a single concentration value for each steroid at the various time points. For each steroid, the first time-point was taken as the initial value for the concentration. The initial concentrations of steroids that were not detected at the start point were set to zero. The pregnenolone concentrations between the measurements were interpolated to give a time continuous input to the rest of the network. Having the pregnenolone concentration and initial concentrations for the remaining steroids, the system can be integrated for given reaction rate constants ki. To find the ki that best fitted the data, a weighted least square estimate was calculated using the R package Template Model Builder (TMB)(Kristensen et al., 2016).
Figure 1
Results
Cell viability
Cell viability was evaluated using the Alamar Blue assay. No deviation from control was observed with 10uM forskolin exposure, whereas the positive control triton X-100 showed decrease cell viability (data not shown).
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
LC-MS/MS analysis
Successive chromatographic separation of 19 adrenal steroids synthesised by H295R cell was achieved within 11 min for sample elution, column washing and re- equilibration (Table 1). With the exception of 17OH-pregnenolone and 17OH- progesterone, baseline separation of all other metabolites was achieved with a C18 column over the entire concentration range (Figure 2).
The chromatographic separation starts with estrone sulfate in negative mode at 1.26 min followed by dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate (DHEAS), estriol, aldosterone, cortisone, cortisol and estradiol respectively all in negative mode (Figure 2 A). Furthermore, corticosterone (CCST), 11-deoxycortisol, androstenedione, testosterone, dihydrotestosterone (DHT), dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), 21- hydroxyprogesterone (21OHP), 17-hydroxypregnenolone (17OH-PREG), 17- hydroxy-progesterone (17OHP), progesterone and pregnenolone follow in positive mode (Supplementary Figure 1).
Assay coefficients of variation (CV) were determined from repeated measurements of in-house prepared quality control (QC) samples at three different levels (Table 3). Lower limit of detection (LLOD) were determined as recommended by Armbruster and Pry, (2008). Estimated LLOD values can be found in Table 2. The accuracy of cortisol, cortisone, 11-deoxycortisol, progesterone, testosterone, 17-OH-progesterone, androstenedione and aldosterone have been determined (Supplementary Table 1).
Table 2
Forskolin exposure
Measured concentrations of steroid levels in media of H295R cells after 48 hours of exposure to different concentrations of forskolin showed that levels of the majority of analytes increased with elevated forskolin concentration as shown in Figure 3. As expected the increase in steroid secretion reached a saturation level at around 10 uM of forskolin exposure (Figure 3). The half-maximum production for most steroids occurred at approximately 1.5 uM forskolin, which was chosen to stimulate H295R cells for the timeline study.
Figure 3
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Steroid production timeline
In the timeline experiment, precursors such as pregnenolone and progesterone reached peak production at 24 hours (Figure 4). On the other hand, levels of end products like testosterone, cortisol and aldosterone showed a continuous increase for up to 72 hours. In addition, we observed that androstenedione and 11-deoxycortisol and DHEAS constitute around 86% of total steroids secreted by H295R cells, while estriol and aldosterone contributed only around 0.01% of the total steroid hormone production (Figure 4).
Figure 4
Table 3.
Dynamic model
Based on the timeline data, optimization showed that the best fit for the dynamic model was attained by k6=k17=k21=0 (Figure 1), suggesting that the corresponding fluxes can be deleted from the model. In addition, the concentrations of corticosterone and aldosterone were too small to match the degradation of 11-deoxycorticosterone that takes place after 24 h. To compensate for this, an extra exchange flux from 11- deoxycorticosterone leaving the system is introduced. This could e.g. indicate leakage to another pathway. Finally, v10 can under the current conditions be modelled as an irreversible reaction from cortisol to cortisone due to the propagation of cortisone. Altogether this suggests the adjusted model of Figure 5, for which we again performed parameter estimation using TMB.
The optimized reaction rate constants are listed in Table 4. TMB calculates standard deviations for each parameter in addition to the point estimates. These calculations show that k1, k2 and k22 are highly uncertain while the rest of the parameters have smaller standard deviations.
The concentrations predicted by the dynamic model are plotted in Figure 6 together with the measured values.
Figure 5
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Figure 6 Table 4
Discussion
The H295R cell line is considered a unique model for the study of steroidogenic pathways, but also for the evaluation of endocrine disruption caused by xenobiotics (OECD, 2011; Rijk et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2014). Here we report a new steroidogenesis assay to profile the adrenal steroid metabolome of H295R cells. We have developed a robust and high throughput method to simultaneously analyse 19 precursors, intermediates and end-products of the steroid biosynthesis pathway. Our assay can be used to study metabolite fluxes in steroid biosynthesis, and to identify the targets of substances that interfere with this pathway. The low sample volume, combined with an automated sample extraction, and a short a chromatographic run- time of 11 minutes (Table 1) provide a throughput capacity of 130 sample per 24 hours with minimal hands-on time by a single operator.
Baseline separation was achieved for all steroids in the liquid chromatography step, with the exception of 17OH-PREG and 17OHP. We did not observe any spectral interference between 17OH-PREG and 17OHP, but the continuous polarity switching required for their concurrent measurement may contribute to an increase imprecision (Table 1). The majority of calibration curves were linear, as shown by the coefficient of determination (12) being ≥ 0.99 (Table 2). However, similarly to previous reports (Abdel-Khalik et al., 2013), our data show poorer precision and non-linearity at low concentrations for DHT, estrone and corticosterone. According to the FDA guidelines from 2001, the precision of measurement relative standard deviation (RSD) should not exceed 15 %. Our data indicated that the LC-MS/MS assay had an RSD lower than 15 % for most measured steroids, although corticosterone in the medium concentration and 11-deoxycortisol at the high concentration showed an RSD of 25.8 % and 20.4 % respectively (Table 3).
Several studies that utilize the H295R cell line as a model use 10 uM forskolin to stimulate steroid production (Seamon et al., 1981; Winther et al., 2013). However,
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
several publications showed a dose related increase of steroid production with forskolin exposure (Hecker et al., 2006b; Weisser et al., 2016). Our results showed a similar increase in steroid production, but we observed a maximum stimulation point at 10 µM forskolin exposure for the majority of steroids. We chose a forskolin concentration of 1.5 uM to induce steroid production at approximately the half- maximum rate, to obtain more insights into the dynamics of steroid production in H295R cells.
By measuring the steroid metabolome at several different time points, we gain a more accurate assessment of the impact of pharmaceutical compounds and environmental toxicants on steroidogenesis (Mangelis et al., 2016). In the second part of this study, we measured changes in the 19 steroids from the metabolome from H295R cells cultured at multiple time points from 0 to 72 hours. We found that precursor steroids such as progesterone, pregnenolone, dehydroepiandrosterone and 21- hydroxyprogesterone reached their highest production point at 24 hours after treatment with 1.5 uM forskolin. Moreover, hormone production of end-products such as estradiol, testosterone and cortisol continue to increase until 72 hours after treatment similar to previous reports (Rainey et al., 1993).
Although this method provides a comprehensive overview of the steroidogenesis pathway in H295R cells, it lacks the measurement of cholesterol, which is the primary precursor for this process (Cherradi et al., 2001). In steroidogenic cells, sources for cholesterol are de novo synthesis, intracellular cholesteryl ester and lipoprotein cholesterol from the blood, with the latter being the primary source of cholesterol used in steroidogenic cells (Preslock, 1980; van Leusden and Villee, 1965). Extracellular cholesterol has been reported to account for around 80 % of adrenal steroid production (Borkowski et al., 1970; Gwynne and Strauss, 1982), which suggests that any reduction in blood cholesterol or in cell culture medium may affect steroid production (Azhar et al., 1981; Christie et al., 1979). However, this key aspect of hormone biosynthesis has not been addressed in previous studies of steroido genesis (Boggs et al., 2016; Weisser et al., 2016).
In our modelling approach, we have assumed first order kinetics. This was also used by Mangelis et al. (2016), and is valid for reactions under the Michaelis-Menten
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
assumption that are not saturated (Johnson and Goody, 2011). The forskolin concentration of our experiment was 1.5 uM compared to 10 uM in Mangelis et al. (2016). This justifies that the assumption could be applied also here, which our results support (Figure 3). Furthermore, we only consider the extracellular concentrations and treat the system as one compartment. This assumption can be justified since the intracellular concentrations of steroids are small compared to the extracellular concentrations and the reaction rates then are likely to be governed by the extracellular concentrations. In addition, the main point of this work is not to study the exact reaction rates of steroidogenesis, but rather motivate how measurements of all the steroids could help build more complete models for the steroidogenesis.
The obtained parameter values show that some of the reactions are not needed to fit the data and were therefore deleted. These reactions, however, may be active and of importance in vivo. The large standard deviations of k1, k2 and k22 are due to the introduction of the flux V22. There is no restriction on how much that should flow out of the system, making several parameter values possible (Uemura et al., 2010). To compensate for this, one could for instance introduce an extra term in the objective function to penalize large outflows. However, this flux is necessary to be able to fit the concentrations on the left branch of Figure 3.
We have shown that the data produced by this approach can be used to build a dynamic model for all the steroid concentrations of steroido genesis. Our model is able to predict the main trends of the measurement data using first order kinetics. Other mathematical models of steroidogenesis have previously been presented elsewhere (Breen et al., 2011; Mangelis et al., 2016). Both of these studies model the intracellular and extracellular concentrations of the various steroids and apply more advanced kinetics. However, these models do not include all the steroid hormones as considered in our model.
Conclusion
Using the adrenocortical H295R cell model we have developed a sensitive LC- MS/MS based method that enables us to measure all the components of the total steroidogenesis pathway except for its precursor cholesterol. Based on timeline studies of H295R cells treated with forskolin at 50% of saturation, we showed that
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
such data can be used to develop a dynamic model. This dynamic model can enhance our understanding of the steroidogenesis process and our ability to predict the effects of drugs and environmental toxicants on this pathway. This method can be used in mechanistic studies of H295R adrenal steroid production as well as for a more in- depth view of the intermediate metabolome which could be of environmental and toxicological importance.
Acknowledgments
This work is partially funded by Stress-POP project (project number: 213076) and dCod 1.0 project (project no. 248840) funded by the Norwegian Research Council. The Hormone laboratory at Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen is acknowledged for providing instruments and materials for this work. Also, Roger Lille-Langøy (staff engineer) is acknowledged for his helpful discussions and Silje Larsen (master student) for her contribution with cell culturing.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
References
Abdel-Khalik, J., Björklund, E., Hansen, M., 2013. Development of a solid phase extraction method for the simultaneous determination of steroid hormones in H295R cell line using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. J. Chromatogr. B Anal. Technol. Biomed. Life Sci. 935, 61-69. doi:10.1016/j.jchromb.2013.07.013
Alder, L., Greulich, K., Kempe, G., Vieth, B., 2006. Residue analysis of 500 high priority pesticides: Better by GC-MS or LC-MS/MS? Mass Spectrom. Rev. 25, 838-865. doi:10.1002/mas.20091
Armbruster, D.A., Pry, T., 2008. Limit of blank, limit of detection and limit of quantitation. Clin. Biochem. Rev. 29 Suppl 1, S49-52. doi:citeulike-article-id:3416410
Azhar, S., Menon, M., Menon, K.M.J., 1981. Receptor-mediated gonadotropin action in the ovary Demonstration of acute dependence ofrat luteal cells on exogenously supplied steroid precursor (sterols) for gonadotropin-induced steroidogenesis. Biochim. Biophys. Acta (BBA)/Lipids Lipid Metab. 665, 362-375. doi:10.1016/0005-2760(81)90248-4
Bird, I.M., Pasquarette, M.M., Rainey, W.E., Mason, J.I., 1996. Differential control of 17 alpha- hydroxylase and 3 beta-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase expression in human adrenocortical H295R cells. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 81, 2171-8. doi:10.1210/jcem.81.6.8964847
Boggs, A.S.P., Bowden, J.A., Galligan, T.M., Guillette, L.J., Kucklick, J.R., 2016. Development of a multi-class steroid hormone screening method using Liquid Chromatography/Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 1-12. doi:10.1007/s00216-016-9512-1
Borkowski, A., Levin, S., Delcroix, C., Klastersky, J., 1970. Equilibration of plasma and adrenal cholesterol in man. J. Appl. Physiol. 28, 42-49.
Breen, M., Breen, M.S., Terasaki, N., Yamazaki, M., Lloyd, A.L., Conolly, R.B., 2011. Mechanistic computational model of steroidogenesis in H295R cells: Role of oxysterols and cell proliferation to improve predictability of biochemical response to endocrine active chemical-metyrapone. Toxicol. Sci. 123, 80-93. doi:10.1093/toxsci/kfr167
Breen, M.S., Breen, M., Terasaki, N., Yamazaki, M., Conolly, R.B., 2010. Computational model of steroidogenesis in human H295R cells to predict biochemical response to endocrine-active chemicals: Model development for metyrapone. Environ. Health Perspect. 118, 265-272. doi:10.1289/ehp.0901107
Cai, W., Benitez, R., Counsell, R.E., Djanegara, T., Schteingart, D.E., Sinsheimer, J.E., Wotring, L.L., 1995. Bovine adrenal cortex transformations of mitotane [1-(2-chlorophenyl)-1-(4-
chlorophenyl)-2,2-dichloroethane; o,p’-DDD] and its p,p’- and m,p’-isomers. Biochem. Pharmacol. 49, 1483-1489. doi:10.1016/0006-2952(95)00028-X
Charles, G.D., 2004. In vitro models in endocrine disruptor screening. ILAR J. doi:10.1093/ilar.45.4.494
Cheng, C.Y., Hornsby, P.J., 1992. Expression of 11 beta-hydroxylase and 21-hydroxylase in long-term cultures of bovine adrenocortical cells requires extracellular matrix factors. Endocrinology 130, 2883-9. doi:10.1210/endo.130.5.1572301
Cherradi, N., Bideau, M., Arnaudeau, S., Demaurex, N., James, R.W., Azhar, S., Capponi, A.M., 2001. Angiotensin II promotes selective uptake of high density lipoprotein cholesterol esters in bovine
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
adrenal glomerulosa and human adrenocortical carcinoma cells through induction of scavenger receptor class B type I. Endocrinology 142, 4540-4549. doi:10.1210/en.142.10.4540
Christie, M., Strauss III, J., Flickinger, G., 1979. Effect of reduced blood cholesterol on steroland steroid metabolism by rat luteal tissue. Endocrinology 105, 92.
Cohen, A.I., Bloch, E., Celozzi, E., 1957. In vitro Response of Functional Experimental Adrenal Tumors to Corticotropin (ACTH). Exp. Biol. Med. 95, 304-309. doi:10.3181/00379727-95- 23202
Conolly, R.B., Lutz, W.K., 2004. Nonmonotonic dose-response relationships : mechanistic basis, kinetic modeling, and implications for risk assessment. Toxicol. Sci. 77, 151-7. doi:10.1093/to xsci/kfh 007
Denner, K., Rainey, W.E., Pezzi, V., Bird, I.M., Bernhardt, R., Mathis, J.M., 1996. Differential regulation of 11 beta-hydroxylase and aldosterone synthase in human adrenocortical H295R cells. Mol. Cell. Endocrinol. 121, 87-91. doi:0303720796038531 [pii]
Faupel-Badger, J.M., Fuhrman, B.J., Xu, X., Falk, R.T., Keefer, L.K., Veenstra, T.D., Hoover, R.N., Ziegler, R.G., 2010. Comparison of liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry, RIA, and ELISA methods for measurement of urinary estrogens. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 19, 292-300. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-09-0643
Fox, J.E., 2004. Chemical communication threatened by endocrine-disrupting chemicals. Environ. Health Perspect. 112, 648-53.
Gazdar, A.F., Oie, H.K., Shackleton, C.H., Chen, T.R., Triche, T.J., Myers, C.E., Chrousos, G.P., Brennan, M.F., Stein, C.A., La Rocca, R. V, 1990. Establishment and characterization of a human adrenocortical carcinoma cell line that expresses multiple pathways of steroid biosynthesis. Cancer Res. 50, 5488-5496.
Gracia, T., Hilscherova, K., Jones, P.D., Newsted, J.L., Zhang, X., Hecker, M., Higley, E.B., Sanderson, J.T., Yu, R.M.K., Wu, R.S.S., Giesy, J.P., 2006. The H295R system for evaluation of endocrine-disrupting effects. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 65, 293-305. doi:10.1016/j.ecoenv.2006.06.012
Guo, T., Taylor, R.L., Singh, R.J., Soldin, S.J., 2006. Simultaneous determination of 12 steroids by isotope dilution liquid chromatography-photospray ionization tandem mass spectrometry. Clin. Chim. Acta 372, 76-82. doi:10.1016/j.cca.2006.03.034
Gwynne, J.T., Strauss, J.F., 1982. The role of lipoproteins in steroidogenesis and cholesterol metabolism in steroidogenic glands. Endocr. Rev. 3, 299-329. doi:10.1210/edrv-3-3-299
Harvey, P.W., Everett, D.J., 2003. The adrenal cortex and steroidogenesis as cellular and molecular targets for toxicity: Critical omissions from regulatory endocrine disrupter screening strategies for human health? J. Appl. Toxicol. doi:10.1002/jat.896
Heald, A.H., Butterworth, A., Kane, J.W., Borzomato, J., Taylor, N.F., Layton, T., Kilpatrick, E.S., Rudenski, A., 2006. Investigation into possible causes of interference in serum testosterone measurement in women. Ann Clin Biochem 43, 189-195. doi:10.1258/000456306776865106
Hecker, M., Newsted, J.L., Murphy, M.B., Higley, E.B., Jones, P.D., Wu, R., Giesy, J.P., 2006a. Human adrenocarcinoma (H295R) cells for rapid in vitro determination of effects on
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
steroidogenesis: Hormone production. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 217, 114-124. doi:10.1016/j.taap.2006.07.007
Hecker, M., Newsted, J.L., Murphy, M.B., Higley, E.B., Jones, P.D., Wu, R., Giesy, J.P., 2006b. Human adrenocarcinoma (H295R) cells for rapid in vitro determination of effects on steroidogenesis: Hormone production. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 217, 114-124. doi:10.1016/j.taap.2006.07.007
Hilscherova, K., Jones, P.D., Gracia, T., Newsted, J.L., Zhang, X., Sanderson, J.T., Yu, R.M.K., Wu, R.S.S., Giesy, J.P., 2004. Assessment ofthe effects of chemicals on the expression of ten steroidogenic genes in the H295R cell line using real-time PCR. Toxicol. Sci. 81, 78-89. doi:10.1093/toxsci/kfh 191
Hoofnagle, A.N., Wener, M.H., 2009. The fundamental flaws of immunoassays and potential solutions using tandem mass spectrometry. J. Immunol. Methods. doi:10.1016/j.jim.2009.06.003
Huhtaniemi, I.T., Tajar, A., Lee, D.M., O’Neill, T.W., Finn, J.D., Bartfai, G., Boonen, S., Casanueva, F.F., Giwercman, A., Han, T.S., Kula, K., Labrie, F., Lean, M.E.J., Pendleton, N., Punab, M., Silman, A.J., Vanderschueren, D., Forti, G., Wu, F.C.W., Petrone, L., Corona, G., Borghs, H., Slowikowska-Hilczer, J., Walczak-Jedrzejowska, R., Steer, P., Pye, S., Lage, M., Castro, A.I., F ?? Idesi, I., Fejes, I., Korrovitz, P., Jiang, M., 2012. Comparison of serum testosterone and estradiol measurements in 3174 European men using platform immunoassay and mass spectrometry; relevance for the diagnostics in aging men. Eur. J. Endocrinol. 166, 983-991. doi:10.1530/EJE-11-1051
Johnson, K.A., Goody, R.S., 2011. The original Michaelis constant: Translation of the 1913 Michaelis- Menten Paper. Biochemistry 50, 8264-8269. doi:10.1021/bi201284u
Kanno, J., Onyon, L., Haseman, J., Fenner-Crisp, P., Ashby,J., Owens, W., 2001. The OECD program to validate the rat uterotrophic bioassay to screen compounds for in vivo estrogenic responses: Phase 1. Environ. Health Perspect. 109, 785-794. doi:10.2307/3454820
Kjærstad, M.B., Taxvig, C., Nellemann, C., Vinggaard, A.M., Andersen, H.R., 2010. Endocrine disrupting effects in vitro of conazole antifungals used as pesticides and pharmaceuticals. Reprod. Toxicol. 30, 573-582. doi:10.1016/j.reproto x.2010.07.009
Kristensen, K., Nielsen, A., Berg, C.W., Skaug, H., Bell, B., 2016. TMB: Automatic Differentiation and Laplace Approximation. J. Stat. Softw. 70, 1-21. doi:10.18637/jss.v070.i05
Kushnir, M.M., Rockwood, A.L., Roberts, W.L., Yue, B., Bergquist, J., Meikle, A.W., 2011. Liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry for analysis of steroids in clinical laboratories. Clin. Biochem. 44, 77-88. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2010.07.008
Mangelis, A., Dieterich, P., Peitzsch, M., Richter, S., Jühlen, R., Hübner, A., Willenberg, H.S., Deussen, A., Lenders, J.W.M., Eisenhofer, G., 2016. Computational analysis of liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometric steroid profiling in NCI H295R cells following angiotensin II, forskolin and abiraterone treatment. J. Steroid Biochem. Mol. Biol. 155, 67-75. doi:10.1016/j.jsbmb.2015.09.038
Meija, J., Mester, Z., 2008. Paradigms in isotope dilution mass spectrometry for elemental speciation analysis. Anal. Chim. Acta 607, 115-125. doi:10.1016/j.aca.2007.11.050
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Methlie, P., Hustad, S.S., Kellmann, R., Almås, B., Erichsen, M.M., Husebye, E., Løvås, K., 2013. Multisteroid LC-MS/MS assay for glucocorticoids and androgens, and its application in Addison’s disease. Endocr. Connect. 2, 125-136. doi:10.1530/EC-13-0023
Middle, J.G., 2007. Dehydroepiandrostenedione sulphate interferes in many direct immunoassays for testosterone. Ann. Clin. Biochem. 44, 173-7. doi:10.1258/000456307780118082
Mountjoy, K.G., Bird, I.M., Rainey, W.E., Cone, R.D., 1994. ACTH induces up-regulation of ACTH receptor mRNA in mouse and human adrenocortical cell lines. Mol. Cell. Endocrinol. 99, R17- 20. doi:10.1016/0303-7207(94)90160-0
O’Connor, J.C., Frame, S.R., Ladics, G.S., 2002. Evaluation of a 15-Day Screening Assay Using Intact Male Rats for Identifying Antiandrogens. Toxicol. Sci. 69, 92-108. doi:10.1093/toxsci/69.1.92
Odermatt, A., Strajhar, P., Engeli, R.T., 2016. Disruption of steroidogenesis: Cell models for mechanistic investigations and as screening tools. J. Steroid Biochem. Mol. Biol. 158, 9-21. doi:10.1016/j.jsbmb.2016.01.009
OECD, 2011. Test No. 456: H295R Steroidogenesis Assay, OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 4. doi:10.1787/9789264122642-en
Penning, T.M., Lee, S.H., Jin, Y., Gutierrez, A., Blair, I.A., 2010. Liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) of steroid hormone metabolites and its applications. J. Steroid Biochem. Mol. Biol. 121, 546-555. doi:10.1016/j.jsbmb.2010.01.005
Preslock, J.P., 1980. A review of in vitro testicular steroidogenesis in rodents, monkeys and humans. J. Steroid Biochem. 13, 965-975. doi:10.1016/0022-4731(80)90172-7
Rainey, W.E., Bird, I.M., Mason, J.I., 1994. The NCI-H295 cell line: a pluripotent model for human adrenocortical studies. Mol. Cell. Endocrinol. 100, 45-50. doi:10.1016/0303-7207(94)90277-1
Rainey, W.E., Bird, I.M., Sawetawan, C., Hanley, N.A., Mccarthy, J.L., Mc gee, E.A., Wester, R., Mason, J.I., 1993. Regulation of human adrenal carcinoma cell (NCI-H295) production of C19 steroids. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 77, 731-737. doi:10.1210/jcem.77.3.8396576
Rauh, M., 2010. Steroid measurement with LC-MS/MS. Application examples in pediatrics. J. Steroid Biochem. Mol. Biol. doi:10.1016/j.jsbmb.2009.12.007
Rijk, J.C.W., Peijnenburg, A.A.C.M., Blokland, M.H., Lommen, A., Hoogenboom, R.L.A.P., Bovee, T.F.H., 2012. Screening for ModulatoryEffects on Steroidogenesis Using the Human H295R Adrenocortical Cell Line: A Metabolomics Approach. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 25, 1720-1731.
Seamon, K.B.K.B.B., Padgett, W., Daly, J.W.J.W.W., 1981. Forskolin: unique diterpene activator of adenylate cyclase in membranes and in intact cells. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 78, 3363- 3367. doi:10.1073/pnas.78.6.3363
Singh, R.J., 2008. Validation of a high throughput method for serum/plasma testosterone using liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). Steroids 73, 1339-1344. doi:10.1016/j.steroids.2008.07.006
Stanczyk, F.Z., Lee, J.S., Santen, R.J., 2007. Standardization of Steroid Hormone Assays: Why, How, and When? Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers & Prev. 16, 1713-1719. doi:10.1158/1055- 9965.EPI-06-0765
Stenman, U .- H., 2013. Standardization of hormone determinations. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Endocrinol.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Metab. 27, 823-830. doi:10.1016/j.beem.2013.10.007
Szécsi, M., Tóth, I., Gardi, J., Nyári, T., Julesz, J., 2004. HPLC-RIA analysis of steroid hormone profile in a virilizing stromal tumor of the ovary. J. Biochem. Biophys. Methods 61, 47-56. doi:10.1016/j.jbbm.2004.04.008
Tomoya, Y., Ueda, S., Yoshioka, K., Kawamura, S., Seki, T., Okuno, Y., Mikami, N., 2003. Lack of estrogenic or (anti-)androgenic effects of d-phenothrin in the uterotrophic and Hershberger assays. Toxicology 186, 227-239. doi:10.1016/S0300-483X(02)00750-3
Toppari, J., Larsen, J.C., Christiansen, P., Giwercman, A., Grandjean, P., Guillette, L.J., Jégou, B., Jensen, T.K., Jouannet, P., Keiding, N., Leffers, H., McLachlan, J.A., Meyer, O., Müller, J., Rajpert-De Meyts, E., Scheike, T., Sharpe, R., Sumpter, J., Skakkebaek, N.E., Skakkebaek, N.E., 1996. Male reproductive health and environmental xenoestrogens. Environ. Health Perspect. 104 Suppl 4, 741-803.
Uemura, M., Honma, S., Chung, S., Takata, R., Furihata, M., Nishimura, K., Nonomura, N., Nasu, Y., Miki, T., Shuin, T., Fujioka, T., Okuyama, A., Nakamura, Y., Nakagawa, H., 2010. 5aDH-DOC (5a-dihydro-deoxycorticosterone) activates androgen receptor in castration-resistant prostate cancer. Cancer Sci. 101, 1897-1904. doi:10.1111/j.1349-7006.2010.01620.x
van Leusden, H., Villee, C.A., 1965. The de novo synthesis of sterols and steroids from acetate by preparations of human term placenta. Steroids 6, 31-45. doi:10.1016/0039-128X(65)90031-0
Villanueva, J., Carrascal, M., Abian, J., 2014. Isotope dilution mass spectrometry for absolute quantification in proteomics: Concepts and strategies. J. Proteomics 96, 184-199. doi:10.1016/j.jprot.2013.11.004
Wang, S., Rijk, J.C.W., Besselink, H.T., Houtman, R., Peijnenburg, A.A.C.M., Brouwer, A., Rietjens, I.M.C.M., Bovee, T.F.H., 2014. Extending an in vitro panel for estrogenicity testing: The added value of bioassays for measuring antiandrogenic activities and effects on steroidogenesis. Toxicol. Sci. 141, 78-89. doi:10.1093/toxsci/kfu103
Weisser, J.J., Hansen, C.H., Poulsen, R., Larsen, L.W., Cornett, C., Styrishave, B., 2016. Two simple cleanup methods combined with LC-MS/MS for quantification of steroid hormones in in vivo and in vitro assays. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 408, 4883-4895. doi:10.1007/s00216-016-9575-z
WHO, 2012. State of the Science of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals - 2012. World Heal. Organ. 1- 289. doi:10.1016/j.toxlet.2012.03.020
Winther, C.S., Nielsen, F.K., Hansen, M., Styrishave, B., 2013. Corticosteroid production in H295R cells during exposure to 3 endocrine disrupters analyzed with LC-MS/MS. Int. J. Toxicol. 32, 219-27. doi:10.1177/1091581813484366
Zhang, X., Yu, R.M.K., Jones, P.D., Lam, G.K.W., Newsted, J.L., Gracia, T., Hecker, M., Hilscherova, K., Sanderson, J.T., Wu, R.S.S., Giesy, J.P., 2005. Quantitative RT-PCR methods for evaluating toxicant-induced effects on steroidogenesis using the H295R cell line. Environ. Sci. Technol. 39, 2777-2785. doi:10.1021/es048679k
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
| Analyte | Precursor > Quantifier / Qualifier (m/z) | Internal standard | IS Precursor > Quantifier / Qualifier (m/z) | Retention time (min) | Ionization |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aldosterone | 361.1 > 189 /331 | D8-aldosterone | 367.2 > 304 /194 | 3.32 | ESI- |
| Androstenedione | 287.1>97/109 | D7- androstenedione | 294.1>100/113 | 5.60 | ESI+ |
| Corticosterone | 347.0 >121/97 | D2-11 deoxycortisol | 349.2 >97/109 | 4.85 | ESI+ |
| Cortisol | 363.1 >297/282 | D4-cortisol | 335.3 >301/286 | 3.97 | ESI- |
| Cortisone | 361.1 > 137/123 | D4-cortisol | 335.3 > 301 /286 | 3.69 | ESI- |
| 11-Deoxycortisol | 347.0 >97/109 | D2-11 deoxycortisol | 349.2 >97/109 ☒ | 5.00 | ESI+ |
| Dehydroepiandrosterone | 271.2 >253/213 | D6-DHEA | 277.2 >219/258 | 6.18 | ESI+ |
| Dehydroepiandrosterone Sulfate | 271.2 >96/79 | D6-DHEA sulphate | 373.2 >98/80 | 1.68 | ESI- |
| Estrone | 269.1>145/183 | D4-estrone | 273.2 >187/147 | 5.36 | ESI- |
| Estrone Sulfate | 349.1 >269 /145 | D4-EI sulphate | ☒ 353.1 > 273 /147 | 1.07 | ESI- |
| Estriol | 522 > 145 /171 | 13C3-estriol | ☒ 290.1>174/148 | 2.70 | ESI- |
| Estradiol | 255.2>145/183 | D4-estradiol | ☒ 275.2 >187/147 | 5.31 | ESI- |
| 17-hydroxyprogesterone | 331.1 > 97/109 | 13C3-17-hydroxy- progesterone | 334.2 > 112 / 100 | 6.17 | ESI+ |
| 17- hydroxypregnenolone | 297.1 >303/287 | 13C3-17-hydroxy- progesterone | 334.2>112/100 | 6.13 | ESI- |
| Progesterone | 315.2>97/109 | D9-progesterone | 324.2 >100/113 | 7.26 | ESI+ |
| Pregnenolone | 299.1 >159/281 | D9-progesterone | 324.2 >100/113 | 7.76 | ESI+ |
| Testosterone | 289.1 >97/109 | D3-testosterone | 292.1 >97/109 | 5.91 | ESI+ |
| Dihydrotestosterone | 291.2 >159/255 | D3-testosterone | 292.1 >97/109 | 6.71 | ESI+ |
| 21-hydroxyprogesterone | 331.1 >97/109 | D3-testosterone | 292.1 >97/109 | 5.82 | ESI+ |
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
| Metabolites | Range standard curve(ng/ml) | Limit of Detection (nM) | Regression Coefficients (R2) | Average of Slope (m) | Standard deviation of Intercept (b) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aldosterone | 0.02- 20 | 0.11 | 0.999 | 2.077 | 0.07 |
| Pregnenolone | 0.39- 400 | 23.80 | 1.000 | 0.0002 | 0.002 |
| Progesterone | 0.19- 198 | 0.03 | 1.000 | 0.065 | 0.001 |
| Dihydrotestosterone | 0.10- 100 | 2.39 | 1.000 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 21-Hydroxyprogesterone | 0.20- 200 | 0.05 | 1.000 | 0.203 | 0.003 |
| 17-Hydroxypregnenolone | 0.49- 500 | 9.07 | 0.999 | 0.0005 | 0.001 |
| 17-Hydroxyprogesterone | 0.43- 435 | 7.46 | 0.999 | 0.034 | 0.076 |
| Testosterone | 0.09- 88 | 0.03 | 1.000 | 0,269 | 0.002 |
| Estrone | 0.49- 500 | 2.77 | 1.000 | 0.042 | 0.035 |
| Estrone Sulphate | 0.88-901 | 12.02 | 1.000 | 0.013 | 0.048 |
| Cortisone | 0.36- 372 | 0.12 | 1.000 | 0.049 | 0.001 |
| Cortisol | 0.73- 742 | 0.15 | 1.000 | 0.002 | 0.043 |
| Dehydroepiandrosterone | 1.95- 2000 | 23.01 | 0.999 | 0.208 | 1.448 |
| Dehydroepiandrosterone Sulphate | 0.49- 500 | 1.21 | 1.000 | 0.035 | 0.013 |
| Estradiol | 1.47- 1500 | 0.53 | 1.000 | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Corticosterone | 0.20- 200 | 2.77 | 0,999 | 0.095 | 0.08 |
| Estriol | 0.49- 500 | 0.46 | 1.000 | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| 11-Deoxycortisol | 0.10- 100 | 1.03 | 0,998 | 0.106 | 0.033 |
| Androstenedione | 0.32- 219 | 0.32 | 1.000 | 0.07 | 0.006 |
ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
| Quality control levels | Low | Medium | High | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Metabolites | Average CONC | Precision (% RSD) | N | Average CONC | Precision (% RSD) | N | Average CONC | Precision (% RSD) | N |
| Aldosterone | 0.95 | 14.7 | 21 | 2.6 | 13 | 21 | 20.2 | 12.1 | 21 |
| Pregnenolone | 13.5 | 8.8 | 18 | 23.3 | 11.7 | 21 | 135 | 8.3 | 20 |
| Progesterone | 6 | 9.3 | 19 | 8.8 | 8.5 | 18 | 42.7 | 7.3 | 18 |
| Dihydrotestosterone | 3.2 | 15.8 | 18 | 5.7 | 11.7 | 13 | 32.2 | 10.4 | 15 |
| 21-Hydroxyprogesterone | 7 | 14 | 18 | 12.9 | 13.5 | 17 | 74.1 | 10.8 | 17 |
| 17-Hydroxypregnenolone | 17 | 14.8 | 16 | 31.2 | 12.2 | 17 | 207.3 | 10.2 | 16 |
| 17-Hydroxyprogesterone | 14 | 9 | 20 | 22 | 11.4 | 21 | 115.7 | 9.2 | 21 |
| Testosterone | 3.2 | 10 | 21 | 6 | 9.7 | 20 | 37.6 | 14.9 | 19 |
| Estrone | 19.1 | 14.3 | 19 | 41 | 13.2 | 19 | 271 | 8.8 | 16 |
| Estrone Sulphate | 30.2 | 13 | 22 | 44.4 | 8.2 | 18 | 219.3 | 8.6 | 20 |
| Cortisone | 11 | 7 | 21 | 17.2 | 6.7 | 21 | 91 | 8 | 22 |
| Cortisol | 24.2 | 5 | 21 | 40.3 | 5 | 21 | 222.7 | 6 | 22 |
| Dehydroepiandrosterone | 67.6 | 11.9 | 20 | 98.2 | 7.2 | 18 | 430.7 | 9.9 | 20 |
| Dehydroepiandro sterone Sulphate | 23.6 | 11.5 | 20 | 61 | 9.4 | 20 | 494.6 | 9 | 18 |
| Estradiol | 66 | 8.2 | 19 | 166.8 | 6.6 | 19 | 1312.7 | 9.7 | 18 |
| Corticosterone | 6 | 12 | 18 | 8.8 | 25.8 | 17 | 41.5 | 13.3 | 12 |
| Estriol | 20.3 | 6 | 21 | 48.3 | 6.1 | 20 | 370.4 | 6.3 | 22 |
| 11-Deoxycortisol | 31.9 | 7.5 | 21 | 123.9 | 12.1 | 21 | 1775.3 | 20.4 | 6 |
| Androstenedione | 16.4 | 8.1 | 18 | 55.4 | 7.5 | 21 | 216.7 | 15.4 | 13 |
ACCEPTE
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
| Parameter | Point estimate | Standard deviation |
|---|---|---|
| k 1 | 2.94.10-1 h-1 | 1.02.10° h-1 |
| k 2 | 1.24.101 h-1 | 4.36.101 h-1 |
| k 3 | 3.43.10-4 h-1 | 2.15.10-4 h-1 |
| k 4 | 1.02.10-2 h-1 | 6.12.10-3 h-1 |
| k 5 | 5.99-10-1 h-1 | 1.43.10-1 h-1 |
| k 7 | 6.49-10-2 h-1 | 4.24.10-2 h-1 |
| k 8 | 6.78.10-1 h-1 | 4.10.10-1 h-1 |
| k 9 | 4.29.10-3 h-1 | 3.19-10-3 h-1 |
| k10 | 5.67.10-4 h-1 | 5.12.10-4 h-1 |
| k11 | 7.94.10-2 h-1 | 4.74.10-2 h-1 |
| k 12 | 1.89.10-1 h-1 | 1.32.10-1 h-1 |
| k 13 | 1.03.10-1 h-1 | 6.91.10-2 h-1 |
| k 14 | 6.54.10-3 h-1 | 3.94.10-3 h-1 |
| k 15 | 3.98.10-2 h-1 | 3.00-10-2 h-1 |
| k 16 | 3.31-10-3 h-1 | 2.19-10-3 h-1 |
| k 18 | 5.79-10-3 h-/ | 4.89-10-3 h-1 |
| k 19 | 3.33.10-3 h-1 | 2.66-10-3 h-1 |
| k 20 | 1.84.10-4 h-1 | 1.49-10-4 h-1 |
| k 22 | 6.12.10-1 h-1 | 2.32.10° h-1 |
ACCEPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Figure 1: Schematic overview of steroidogenesis used for modelling. The boxes are the steroids measured experimentally and the arrows represent reactions with reaction rates vi. The reaction rates are modelled by first order kinetics such that each rate vi is proportional to its precursor with kinetic parameter ki, e.g. v13=k 13CDHEA. An adjusted model is shown in Figure 5.
Figure 3: Steroid production in the H295R cell line in 48 hours of forskolin stimulation. Following the OECD guideline, steroids were extracted and analysed using the developed method. Each data point represents 6 samples from three independent experiments (n=6). Error bars are standard deviations. Note the difference in y-axis scale.
Figure 4: Profile of steroid metabolites in H295R cells over a time course study after forskolin stimulation. Cells were treated with 1.5uM forskolin, and measurements were taken at several time points from 0 to 72 hours. Each data point represents 6 samples from three independent experiments (n=6). Error bars are standard deviations. Note the difference in y-axis scale.
Figure 5: Adjusted schematic overview of steroidogenesis used for modelling. The boxes are the steroids measured experimentally and the arrows represent reactions with reaction rates vi. The reaction rates are modelled by first order kinetics such that each rate vi is proportional to its precursor with kinetic parameter ki, e.g. v13=k13CDHEA. The original model is shown in Figure 1.
VE
Figure 6: Steroid production of H295R cells after 1.5 uM forskolin stimulation, based on measurements (o) and dynamic prediction line. The x-axes are time [h] and the y-axes are concentration [nM]. The circles represent measurements performed experimentally and the lines are predictions made using the dynamical model presented in the paper. A schematic overview of the model is shown in Figure 5. The measured data points are used to estimate the kinetic parameters of the model and the resulting values are shown in Table 4. For technical details of the model see the subsections “Dynamical model” in the sections “Methods” and “Results”.
ACCEPTÉ
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
· The H295R cell line is used in an OECD-approved assay for endocrine disruption
· We have developed a new LC-MS assay to profile the entire steroidogenesis pathway in H295R cells
· Forskolin-stimulated production of steroids was determined as a function of time
· The data were used to build a dynamic model for steroidogenesis
· Our combined approach may provide improved tools to examine the mechanisms of endocrine disruptors
ACCEPTED MANUSCA DE Seconde.
Pregnenolone
V5
17-hydroxy- pregnenolone
V11
DHEA
V12
DHEAS
V1
27
Progesterone
V6
17-hydroxy- progesterone
V13
EstroneS
V2
V8
V15
11-deoxycorti- costerone
11-deoxycortisol
Androstenedione
V14
Estrone
V3
V9
V16
V17
Corticosterone
Cortisol
Testosterone
V18
Estradiol
V20
1
V4
V10
V19
V21
Aldosterone
Cortisone
DHT
Estriol
Pregnenolone
100-
concentration in nM
80-
60-
40-
20
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
Forskolin concentation in u.M
Progesterone
8-
concentration in nM
₮
9
A
N
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
Forskolin concentation in u.M
DHTestosterone
10-
concentration in nM
5-
0-
0
5
10
15
20
25
Forskolin concentation in uM
21OHP
250-
concentration in nM
200-
₮
150-
100-
50-
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
Forskolin concentation in u.M
17OH-pregnenolone
17OH-progesterone
DHEA
Testosterone
600-
200-
300-
150-
concentration in nM
concentration in nM
concentration in nM
concentration in nM
400-
150-
200-
100-
100-
200-
100-
50-
50-
0
5
15
20
25
0
5
10
15
20
25
0
0
0
10
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
0
5
10
15
20
25
Forskolin concentation in u.M
Forskolin concentation in u.M
Forskolin concentation in µM
Forskolin concentation in u.M
Estrone
Estradiol
Estriol
Corticosterone
200-
20-
0.6-
5-
concentration in nM
concentration in nM
concentration in nM
concentration in nM
150-
15-
4-
0.4-
3-
100-
10-
0.2-
2-
50-
5-
6
1-
E
·
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
0.0
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
0
5
10
15
20
25
Forskolin concentation in u.M
Forskolin concentation in u.M
Forskolin concentation in u.M
Forskolin concentation in u.M
Cortisol
Cortisone
DHEA Sulfate
Estrone Sulfate
600-
15-
4000-
100-
concentration in nM
concentration in nM
concentration in nM
concentration in nM
3000-
80-
400-
10-
60-
2000
200
5-
40
1000-
20-
0
0
5
15
20
25
0
0
10
0
5
10
15
20
25
5
10
15
20
25
0
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
Forskolin concentation in uM
Forskolin concentation in u.M
Forskolin concentation in u.M
Forskolin concentation in u.M
Aldosterone
1.5-
concentration in nM
1.0-
0.5
0.0
0
5
10
15
20
25
Forskolin concentation in µM
11-deoxycortisol
6000-
concentration in nM
I
4000-
2000
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
Forskolin concentation in u.M
Androstenedione
4000-
concentration in nM
3000-
2000-
1000-
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
Forskolin concentation in u.M
Pregnenolone
Progesterone
DHTestosterone
21OHP
1000-
15-
20-
300-
Concentration in nM
800-
Concentration in nM
Concentration in nM
Concentration in nM
15-
600-
10-
200-
10-
400-
5-
100-
200-
5-
0
0
0
0
0
20
40
60
80
0
20
40
60
80
0
20
40
60
80
0
20
40
60
80
Hours
Hours
Hours
Hours
17OHPregnenolone
4000-
Concentration in nM
3000-
2000-
1000-
0
0
20
40
60
80
Hours
17OHProgesterone
200-
Concentration in nM
150-
100-
50-
0
0
20
40
60
80
Hours
DHEA
1000
Concentration in nM
800
600
400
200
O
0
20
40
60
80
Hours
Testosterone
200-
Concentration in nM
150-
100-
50-
0
0
20
40
60
80
Hours
Estrone
Estradiol
Estriol
Corticosterone
250
30-
1.5-
2.5-
Concentration in nM
200-
Concentration in nM
Concentration in nM
Concentration in nM
2.0-
150-
20-
1.0-
1.5-
100-
10-
0.5-
1.0-
50-
₹
0.5-
0
0.
0.0
2
0
20
40
60
80
0
20
40
60
80
0
20
40
0.0
60
80
0
20
40
60
80
Hours
Hours
Hours
Hours
Cortisol
800-
Concentration in nM
600-
400-
200-
0
0
20
40
60
80
Hours
Cortisone
15-
Concentration in nM
10-
5-
0
0
20
40
60
80
Hours
DHEA Sulfate
5000-
Concentration in nM
4000-
3000-
2000-
1000-
0-
0
20
40
60
80
Hours
Estrone Sulfate
300-
Concentration in nM
200-
100-
0-
0
20
40
60
80
Hours
Aldosterone
1.0-
Concentration in nM
0.8
0.6
0.4-
0.2
0.0
0
20
40
60
80
Hours
Pregnenolone
V5
17-hydroxy- pregnenolone
V11
DHEA
V12
DHEAS
V1
U7
Progesterone
17-hydroxy- progesterone
V13
EstroneS
V2
V8
V15
U22
11-deoxycorti- costerone
11-deoxycortisol
Androstenedione
V14
Estrone
V3
V9
V16
Corticosterone
Cortisol
Testosterone
V18
Estradiol
V20
V4
V10
V19
Aldosterone
Cortisone
DHT
Estriol
Concentration [nM]
Progesterone
Cortisol
Aldosterone
20
1000
2
0
10
500
1
O
0
O
0
0
20
40
60
80
0
0
20
40
60
80
0
20
40
60
80
Cortisone
Corticosterone
Testosterone
10
0
4
200
5
2
100
O
0
0
0
0
20
40
60
80
0
20
40
60
80
0
20
40
60
80
DHT
Estrone
Estradiol
20
200
0
40
10
100
20
0
0
20
40
60
80
0
80
0
0
20
40
60
0
20
40
60
80
Estriol
1000
DHEA
DHEAS
2
4000
1
0
500
2000
0
9
0
0
20
40
60
80
0
20
40
60
80
0
0
20
40
60
80
Estrones
17OHProgesterone
400
400
4000
17OHPregnenolone
200
0
200
2000
O
0
0
0
0
20
40
60
80
0
20
40
60
80
0
20
40
60
80
11-deoxycorticosterone
11-deoxycortisol
Androstenedione
400
5000
2000
200
O
1000
0
O
0
0
0
20
40
60
80
0
20
40
60
80
0
20
40
60
80
Time [h]