Translator Disclaimer
1 May 2004 Diethylstilbestrol Versus Estradiol as Neonatal Disruptors of the Hamster (Mesocricetus auratus) Cervix
William J. Hendry, William S. Branham, Daniel M. Sheehan
Author Affiliations +
Abstract

The synthetic estrogen diethylstilbestrol (DES) is an established, estrogenic endocrine disruptor (ED). The Syrian golden hamster (Mesocricetus auratus) offers some unique advantages as an experimental system to investigate the perinatal ED action of DES and other estrogenic EDs. Previous analyses regarding the consequences of neonatal administration (100 μg) of DES versus estradiol-17β (E2) showed that DES had a more potent disruptive effect on morphogenesis and gene expression in the uterus, oviduct, and ovary as well as in the testis and male accessory organs. The objectives of the present study were to describe the histopathological consequences of the two neonatal treatment regimens in the hamster cervix and to compare them with our previous observations in the hamster uterus. As previously found in the hamster uterus, DES was more potent than E2 as a neonatal disruptor of the hamster cervix in prepubertal animals and in ovarian-intact adult animals. However, the cervix-versus-uterus scenario diverged in animals that were ovariectomized prepubertally and then chronically stimulated with natural estrogen (E2). We confirmed previous observations that neonatal exposure to DES, but not to E2, permanently alters estrogen responsiveness in the adult hamster uterus, but neither neonatal treatment regimen affected estrogen responsiveness in the adult hamster cervix. These results suggest that an unidentified ovarian factor influences the extent of neonatal DES-induced disruption of the cervix, but not of the uterus, in hamsters.

William J. Hendry, William S. Branham, and Daniel M. Sheehan "Diethylstilbestrol Versus Estradiol as Neonatal Disruptors of the Hamster (Mesocricetus auratus) Cervix," Biology of Reproduction 70(5), 1306-1316, (1 May 2004). https://doi.org/10.1095/biolreprod.103.024992
Received: 31 October 2003; Accepted: 1 December 2003; Published: 1 May 2004
JOURNAL ARTICLE
11 PAGES

This article is only available to subscribers.
It is not available for individual sale.
+ SAVE TO MY LIBRARY

SHARE
ARTICLE IMPACT
RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS
Get copyright permission
Back to Top