To the extent possible under law, AOP-Wiki has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to KE:18
Key Event Title
Key Event Components
|aryl hydrocarbon receptor activity||aryl hydrocarbon receptor||increased|
Key Event Overview
AOPs Including This Key Event
|AOP Name||Role of event in AOP||Point of Contact||Author Status||OECD Status|
|AhR mediated mortality, via COX-2||MolecularInitiatingEvent||Markus Hecker (send email)||Open for citation & comment||TFHA/WNT Endorsed|
|AhR activation to steatosis||MolecularInitiatingEvent||Michelle Angrish (send email)||Under Development: Contributions and Comments Welcome|
|AHR activation-uroporphyria||MolecularInitiatingEvent||Amani Farhat (send email)||Open for citation & comment||TFHA/WNT Endorsed|
|AHR activation to ELS mortality, via VEGF||MolecularInitiatingEvent||Amani Farhat (send email)||Open for citation & comment||TFHA/WNT Endorsed|
|AHR mediated epigenetic reproductive failure||MolecularInitiatingEvent||Jon Doering (send email)||Under development: Not open for comment. Do not cite|
|zebra danio||Danio rerio||High||NCBI|
|Gallus gallus||Gallus gallus||High||NCBI|
|Pagrus major||Pagrus major||High||NCBI|
|Acipenser transmontanus||Acipenser transmontanus||High||NCBI|
|Acipenser fulvescens||Acipenser fulvescens||High||NCBI|
|rainbow trout||Oncorhynchus mykiss||High||NCBI|
|Salmo salar||Salmo salar||High||NCBI|
|Xenopus laevis||Xenopus laevis||High||NCBI|
|Ambystoma mexicanum||Ambystoma mexicanum||High||NCBI|
|Phasianus colchicus||Phasianus colchicus||High||NCBI|
|Coturnix japonica||Coturnix japonica||High||NCBI|
|Microgadus tomcod||Microgadus tomcod||High||NCBI|
|All life stages||High|
Key Event Description
The AHR Receptor
The aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AHR) is a ligand-activated transcription factor that belongs to the basic helix-loop-helix Per-ARNT-Sim (bHLH-PAS) superfamily and consists of three domains: the DNA-binding domain (DBD), ligand binding domain (LBD) and transactivation domain (TAD). Other members of this superfamily include the AHR nuclear translocator (ARNT), which acts as a dimerization partner of the AHR ; Per, a circadian transcription factor; and Sim, the “single-minded” protein involved in neuronal development . This group of proteins shares a highly conserved PAS domain and is involved in the detection of and adaptation to environmental change.
Investigations of invertebrates possessing early homologs of the AhR suggest that the AhR evolutionarily functioned in regulation of the cell cycle, cellular proliferation and differentiation, and cell-to-cell communications (Hahn et al 2002). However, critical functions in angiogenesis, regulation of the immune system, neuronal processes, metabolism, development of the heart and other organ systems, and detoxification have emerged sometime in early vertebrate evolution (Duncan et al., 1998; Emmons et al., 1999; Lahvis and Bradfield, 1998).
The molecular Initiating Event
The molecular mechanism for AHR-mediated activation of gene expression is presented in Figure 1. In its unliganded form, the AHR is part of a cytosolic complex containing heat shock protein 90 (HSP90), the HSP90 co-chaperone p23 and AHR-interacting protein (AIP). Upon ligand binding, the AHR migrates to the nucleus where it dissociates from the cytosolic complex and forms a heterodimer with ARNT. The AHR-ARNT complex then binds to a xenobiotic response element (XRE) found in the promoter of an AHR-regulated gene and recruits co-regulators such as CREB binding protein/p300, steroid receptor co-activator (SRC) 1, SRC-2, SRC-3 and nuclear receptor interacting protein 1, leading to induction or repression of gene expression. Expression levels of several genes, including phase I (e.g. cytochrome P450 (CYP) 1A, CYP1B, CYP2A) and phase II enzymes (e.g. uridine diphosphate glucuronosyl transferase (UDP-GT), glutathione S-transferases (GSTs)), as well as genes involved in cell proliferation (transforming growth factor-beta, interleukin-1 beta), cell cycle regulation (p27, jun-B) and apoptosis (Bax), are regulated through this mechanism .
- Over time the AhR has undergone gene duplication and diversification in vertebrates, which has resulted in multiple clades of AhR, namely AhR1, AhR2, and AhR3 (Hahn 2002).
- Fishes and birds express AhR1s and AhR2s, while mammals express a single AhR that is homologous to the AhR1 (Hahn 2002; Hahn et al 2006).
- The AhR3 is poorly understood and known only from some cartilaginous fishes (Hahn 2002).
- Little is known about diversity of AhRs in reptiles and amphibians (Hahn et al 2002).
- In some taxa, subsequent genome duplication events have further led to multiple isoforms of AhRs in some species, with up to four isoforms of the AhR (α, β, δ, γ) having been identified in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) (Hansson et al 2004).
- Although homologs of the AhR have been identified in some invertebrates, compared to vertebrates these AhRs have differences in binding of ligands in the species investigated to date (Hahn 2002; Hahn et al 1994).
Roles of isoforms in birds:
Two AHR isoforms (AHR1 and AHR2) have been identified in the black-footed albatross (Phoebastria nigripes), great cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo) and domestic chicken (Gallus gallus domesticus). AHR1 mRNA levels were similar in the kidney, heart, lung, spleen, brain, gonad and intestine from the great cormorant but were lower in muscle and pancreas. AHR2 expression was mainly observed in the liver, but was also detected in gonad, brain and intestine. AHR1 levels represented a greater proportion (80%) of total AHR levels than AHR2 in the cormorant liver, and while both AHR isoforms bound to TCDD, AHR2 was less effective at inducing TCDD-dependent transactivation compared to AHR1 in black-footed albatross, great cormorant and domestic chicken.
- AhR1 and AhR2 both bind and are activated by TCDD in vitro (Yasui et al 2007).
- AhR1 has greater binding affinity and sensitivity to activation by TCDD relative to AhR2 (Yasui et al 2007).
- AhR1 is believed to mediate toxicities of DLCs, while AhR2 has no known role in toxicities (Farmahin et al 2012; Farmahin et al 2013; Manning et al 2012).
Roles of isoforms in fishes:
- AhR1 and AhR2 both bind and are activated by TCDD in vitro (Bak et al 2013; Doering et al 2014; 2015; Karchner et al 1999; 2005).
- AhR1 has greater sensitivity to activation by TCDD than AhR2 in red seabream (Pagrus major), white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus), and lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) (Bak et al 2013; Doering et al 2014; 2015)
- AhR2 has greater binding affinity or activation by TCDD than AhR1 in zebrafish (Danio rerio) and mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus) (Karchner et al 1999; 2005).
- AhR2 is believed to mediate toxicities in fishes, while AhR1 has no known role in toxicities. Specifically, knockdown of AhR2 protects against toxicities of dioxin-like compounds (DLCs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in zebrafish (Danio rerio) and mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus), while knockdown of AhR1 offers no protection (Clark et al 2010; Prasch et al 2003; Van Tiem & Di Giulio 2011).
Roles of isoforms in amphibians and reptiles:
- Less is known about AhRs of amphibians or reptiles.
- AhR1 is believed to mediate toxicities in amphibians (Hahn 2002; Lavine et al 2005; Oka et al 2016; Shoots et al 2015). However, all AhRs of amphibians that have been investigated have very low affinity for TCDD (Hahn 2002; Lavine et al 2005; Oka et al 2016; Shoots et al 2015).
- Both AhR1s and AhR2 of American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) are activated by agonists with comparable sensitivities (Oka et al 2016). AhRs of no other reptiles have been investigated.
How It Is Measured or Detected
Methods that have been previously reviewed and approved by a recognized authority should be included in the Overview section above. All other methods, including those well established in the published literature, should be described here. Consider the following criteria when describing each method: 1. Is the assay fit for purpose? 2. Is the assay directly or indirectly (i.e. a surrogate) related to a key event relevant to the final adverse effect in question? 3. Is the assay repeatable? 4. Is the assay reproducible?
Transactivation Reporter Gene Assays (recommended approach)
Transient transfection transactivation
Transient transfection transactivation is the most common method for evaluating nuclear receptor activation. Full-length AHR cDNAs are cloned into an expression vector along with a reporter gene construct (chimeric luciferase, P-lactamase or CAT reporter vectors containing the appropriate response elements for the gene of interest). There are a number of commercially available cell lines that can serve as recipients for these vectors (CV-1, HuH7, FLC-7, LS174T, LS180 MCF-7, HEC1, LLC-PK1, HEK293, HepG2, and Caco-2 cells). The greatest advantage of using transfected cells, rather than primary cell cultures, is the assurance that the nuclear receptor of interest is responsible for the observed induction. This would not be possible in a primary cell culture due to the co-regulation of different receptors for the same target genes. This model makes it easy to compare the responsiveness of the AHR across multiple species under the same conditions simply by switching out the AHR clone. One disadvantage to the transient transfection assay is the inherent variability associated with transfection efficiency, leading to a movement towards the use of stable cell lines containing the nuclear receptor and reporter gene linked to the appropriate response elements.
Luciferase reporter gene (LRG) assay
The described luciferase reporter gene (LRG) assays have been used to investigate activation of AhRs of:
- Humans (Homo sapiens) (Abnet et al 1999)
- Species of birds, namely chicken (Gallus gallus), ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus), Japanese quail (Coturnix japonica), and common tern (Sterna hirundo) (Farmahin et al 2012; Manning et al 2013), Mutant AhR1s with ligand binding domains resembling those of at least 86 avian species have also been investigated (Farmahin et al 2013). AhR2s of birds have only been investigated in black-footed albatross (Phoebastria nigripes) and common cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo) (Yasio et al 2007).
- American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) is the only reptile for which AhR activation has been investigated (Oka et al 2016), AhR1A, AhR1B, and AhR2 of American alligator were assayed (Oka et al 2016).
- AhR1 of two amphibians have been investigated, namely African clawed frog (Xenopus laevis) and salamander (Ambystoma mexicanum) (Lavine et al 2005; Shoots et al 2015; Ohi et al 2003),
- AhR1s and AhR2s of several species of fish have been investigated, namely Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), Atlantic tomcod (Microgadus tomcod), white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus), rainbow trout (Onchorhynchys mykiss), red seabream (Pagrus major), lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens), and zebrafish (Danio rerio) (Andreasen et al 2002; Abnet et al 1999; Bak et al 2013; Doering et al 2014; 2015; Evans et al 2005; Hansson & Hahn 2008; Karchner et al 1999; Tanguay et al 1999; Wirgin et al 2011).
For demonstrative purposes, a luciferase reporter gene assay used to measure AHR1-mediated transactivation for avian species is described here. However, comparable assays are utilized for investigating AHR1s and AHR2s of all taxa. A monkey kidney cell line (Cos-7) that has low endogenous AHR1 expression was transfected with the appropriate avian AHR1 clone, cormorant ARNT1, a CYP1A5 firefly luciferase reporter construct and a Renilla luciferase vector to control for transfection efficiency. After seeding, the cells were exposed to DLC and luciferase activity was measured using a luminometer. Luminescence, which is proportional to the extent of AHR activation, is expressed as the ratio of firefly luciferase units to Renilla luciferase units . This particular assay was modified from its original version to increase throughput efficiency; (a) cells were seeded in 96-well plates rather than Petri dishes or 48- well plates, (b) DLCs were added directly to the wells without changing the cell culture medium, and (c) the same 96-well plates were used to measure luminescence without lysing the cells and transferring to another plate. Similar reporter gene assays have been used to measure AHR1 activation in domestic and wild species of birds, including the chicken, ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus), Japanese quail (Coturnix japonica), great cormorant, black-footed albatross and peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus).
Transactivation in stable cell lines
Stable cell lines have been developed and purified to the extent that each cell contains both the nuclear receptor and appropriate reporter vector, eliminating the variability associated with transfection . A stable human cell line containing a luciferase reporter driven by multiple dioxin response elements has been developed that is useful in identifying AhR agonists and antagonists. An added benefit of this model is the potential to multiplex 3 assays in a single well: receptor activation, cell viability and enzyme activity. Such assays are used extensively in drug discovery due to their high throughput efficiency, and may serve just as useful for risk assessment purposes.
Ligand binding assays measure the ability of a test compound to compete with a labeled, high-affinity reference ligand for the LBD of a nuclear receptor. It is important to note that ligand binding does not necessitate receptor activation and therefore cannot distinguish between agonists and antagonists; however, binding affinities of AHR ligands are highly correlated with chemical potencies and can explain differences in species sensitivities to DLCs; they are therefore worth mentioning. Binding affinity and efficacy have been used to develop structure-activity relationships for AHR disruption that are potentially useful in risk-assessment. There has been tremendous progress in the development of ligand-binding assays for nuclear receptors that use homogenous assay formats (no wash steps) allowing for the detection of low-affinity ligands, many of which do not require a radiolabel and are amenable to high throughput screening. This author however was unable to find specific examples of such assays in the context of AHR binding and therefore some classic radioligand assays are described instead.
Hydroxyapatite (HAP) binding assay
The HAP binding assay makes use of an in vitro transcription/translation method to synthesize the AHR protein, which is then incubated with radiolabeled TDCPP and a HAP pellet. The occupied protein adsorbs to the HAP and the radioactivity is measured to determine saturation binding. An additional ligand can also be included in the mixture in order to determine its binding affinity relative to TCDD (competitive binding). This assay is simple, repeatable and reproducible; however, it is insensitive to weak ligand-receptor interactions.
Whole cell filtration binding assay
Dold and Greenlee developed a method to detect specific binding of TCDD to whole mammalian cells in culture and was later modified by Farmahin et al. for avian species. The cultured cells are incubated with radiolabeled TCDD with or without the presence of a competing ligand and filtered. The occupied protein adsorbs onto the filter and the radioactivity is measured to determine saturation binging and/or competitive binding. This assay is able to detect weak ligand-receptor interactions that are below the detection limit of the HAP assay.
Protein-DNA Interaction Assays
The active AHR complexed with ARNT can be measured using protein-DNA interaction assays. Two methods are described in detail by Perez-Romero and Imperiale. Chromatin immunoprecipitation measures the interaction of proteins with specific genomic regions in vivo. It involves the treatment of cells with formaldehyde to crosslink neighboring protein-protein and protein-DNA molecules. Nuclear fractions are isolated, the genomic DNA is sheared, and nuclear lysates are used in immunoprecipitations with an antibody against the protein of interest. After reversal of the crosslinking, the associated DNA fragments are sequenced. Enrichment of specific DNA sequences represents regions on the genome that the protein of interest is associated with in vivo. Electrophoretic mobility shift assay (EMSA) provides a rapid method to study DNA-binding protein interactions in vitro. This relies on the fact that complexes of protein and DNA migrate through a nondenaturing polyacrylamide gel more slowly than free DNA fragments. The protein-DNA complex components are then identified with appropriate antibodies. The EMSA assay was found to be consistent with the LRG assay in chicken hepatoma cells dosed with dioxin-like compounds.
In silico Approaches
In silico homology modeling of the ligand binding domain of the AHR in combination with molecular docking simulations can provide valuable insight into the transactivation-potential of a diverse array of AHR ligands. Such models have been developed for multiple AHR isoforms and ligands (high/low affinity, endogenous and synthetic, agonists and antagonists), and can accurately predict ligand potency based on their structure and physicochemical properties (Bonati et al 2017; Hirano et al 2015; Sovadinova et al 2006).
Domain of Applicability
The AHR structure has been shown to contribute to differences in species sensitivity to DLCs in several animal models. In 1976, a 10-fold difference was reported between two strains of mice (non-responsive DBA/2 mouse, and responsive C57BL/6 14 mouse) in CYP1A induction, lethality and teratogenicity following TCDD exposure. This difference in dioxin sensitivity was later attributed to a single nucleotide polymorphism at position 375 (the equivalent position of amino acid residue 380 in chicken) in the AHR LBD. Several other studies reported the importance of this amino acid in birds and mammals. It has also been shown that the amino acid at position 319 (equivalent to 324 in chicken) plays an important role in ligand-binding affinity to the AHR and transactivation ability of the AHR, due to its involvement in LBD cavity volume and its steric effect. Mutation at position 319 in the mouse eliminated AHR DNA binding.
The first study that attempted to elucidate the role of avian AHR1 domains and key amino acids within avian AHR1 in avian differential sensitivity was performed by Karchner et al.. Using chimeric AHR1 constructs combining three AHR1 domains (DBD, LBD and TAD) from the chicken (highly sensitive to DLC toxicity) and common tern (resistant to DLC toxicity), Karchner and colleagues, showed that amino acid differences within the LBD were responsible for differences in TCDD sensitivity between the chicken and common tern. More specifically, the amino acid residues found at positions 324 and 380 in the AHR1 LBD were associated with differences in TCDD binding affinity and transactivation between the chicken (Ile324_Ser380) and common tern (Val324_Ala380) receptors. Since the Karchner et al. (2006) study was conducted, the predicted AHR1 LBD amino acid sequences were been obtained for over 85 species of birds and 6 amino acid residues differed among species . However, only the amino acids at positions 324 and 380 in the AHR1 LBD were associated with differences in DLC toxicity in ovo and AHR1-mediated gene expression in vitro. These results indicate that avian species can be divided into one of three AHR1 types based on the amino acids found at positions 324 and 380 of the AHR1 LBD: type 1 (Ile324_Ser380), type 2 (Ile324_Ala380) and type 3 (Val324_Ala380).
- Little is known about differences in binding affinity of AhRs and how this relates to sensitivity in non-avian taxa.
- Low binding affinity for DLCs of AhR1s of African clawed frog (Xenopus laevis) and axolotl (Ambystoma mexicanum) has been suggested as a mechanism for tolerance of these amphibians to DLCs (Lavine et al 2005; Shoots et al 2015).
- Among reptiles, only AhRs of American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) have been investigated and little is known about the sensitivity of American alligator or other reptiles to DLCs (Oka et al 2016).
- Among fishes, great differences in sensitivity to DLCs are known both for AhRs and for embryos among species that have been tested (Doering et al 2013; 2014).
- Differences in binding affinity of the AhR2 have been demonstrated to explain differences in sensitivity to DLCs between sensitive and tolerant populations of Atlantic Tomcod (Microgadus tomcod) (Wirgin et al 2011).
- This was attributed to the rapid evolution of populations in highly contaminated areas of the Hudson River, resulting in a 6-base pair deletion in the AHR sequence (outside the LBD) and reduced ligand binding affinity, due to reduces AHR protein stability.
- Information is not yet available regarding whether differences in binding affinity of AhRs of fishes are predictive of differences in sensitivity of embryos, juveniles, or adults (Doering et al 2013).
Evidence for Perturbation by Stressor
Overview for Molecular Initiating Event
The AHR can be activated by several structurally diverse chemicals, but binds preferentially to planar halogenated aromatic hydrocarbons and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Dioxin-like compounds (DLCs), which include polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs), polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs) and certain polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), are among the most potent AHR ligands. Only a subset of PCDD, PCDF and PCB congeners has been shown to bind to the AHR and cause toxic effects to those elicited by TCDD. Until recently, TCDD was considered to be the most potent DLC in birds; however, recent reports indicate that 2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorodibenzofuran (PeCDF) is more potent than TCDD in some species of birds. When screened for their ability to induce aryl hydrocarbon hydroxylase (AHH) activity, dioxins with chlorine atoms at a minimum of three out of the four lateral ring positions, and with at least one non-chlorinated ring position are the most active. Of the dioxin-like PCBs, non-ortho congeners are the most toxicologically active, while mono-ortho PCBs are generally less potent. Chlorine substitution at ortho positions increases the energetic costs of assuming the coplanar conformation required for binding to the AHR . Thus, a smaller proportion of mono-ortho PCB molecules are able to bind to the AHR and elicit toxic effects, resulting in reduced potency of these congeners. Other PCB congeners, such as di-ortho substituted PCBs, are very weak AHR agonists and do not likely contribute to dioxin-like effects .
- Contrary to studies of birds and mammals, even the most potent mono-ortho PCBs bind to AhRs of fishes with very low affinity, if at all (Abnet et al 1999; Doering et al 2014; 2015; Eisner et al 2016; Van den Berg et al 1998).
The role of the AHR in mediating the toxic effects of planar hydrophobic contaminants has been well studied, however the endogenous role of the AHR is less clear . Some endogenous and natural substances, including prostaglandin PGG2 and the tryptophan derivatives indole-3-carbinol, 6-formylindolo[3,2-b]carbazole (FICZ) and kynurenic acid can bind to and activate the AHR.  The AHR is thought to have important endogenous roles in reproduction, liver and heart development, cardiovascular function, immune function and cell cycle regulation  and activation of the AHR by DLCs may therefore adversely affect these processes.
Denison, M. S., Soshilov, A. A., He, G., DeGroot, D. E., and Zhao, B. (2011). Exactly the same but different: promiscuity and diversity in the molecular mechanisms of action of the aryl hydrocarbon (dioxin) receptor. Toxicol.Sci. 124, 1-22.
Of the dioxin-like PCBs, non-ortho congeners are the most toxicologically active, while mono-ortho PCBs are generally less potent (McFarland and Clarke 1989; Safe 1994). Chlorine substitution at ortho positions increases the energetic costs of assuming the coplanar conformation required for binding to the AHR (McFarland and Clarke 1989). Thus, a smaller proportion of mono-ortho PCB molecules are able to bind to the AHR and elicit toxic effects, resulting in reduced potency of these congeners. Other PCB congeners, such as di-ortho substituted PCBs, are very weak AHR agonists and do not likely contribute to dioxin-like effects (Safe 1994).
Safe, S. (1994). Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs): Environmental impact, biochemical and toxic responses, and implications for risk assessment. Critical Reviews in Toxicology 24, 87-149.
McFarland, V. A., and Clarke, J. U. (1989). Environmental occurrence, abundance, and potential toxicity of polychlorinated biphenyl congeners: Considerations for a congener-specific analysis. Environ.Health Perspect. 81, 225-239.
Denison, M. S., Soshilov, A. A., He, G., DeGroot, D. E., and Zhao, B. (2011). Exactly the same but different: promiscuity and diversity in the molecular mechanisms of action of the aryl hydrocarbon (dioxin) receptor. Toxicol.Sci. 124, 1-22.
Cripps, D. J., Peters, H. A., Gocmen, A., and Dogramici, I. (1984) Porphyria turcica due to hexachlorobenzene: a 20 to 30 year follow-up study on 204 patients. Br. J Dermatol. 111 (4), 413-422.
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
PAHs are pontent AHR agonists, but due to their rapid metabolism, they cause a transient alteration in AHR-mediated gene expression; this property results in a very different toxicity profile relative to persistent AHR-agonists such as dioxin-like compounds (Denison et al. 2011).
Denison, M. S., Soshilov, A. A., He, G., DeGroot, D. E., and Zhao, B. (2011). Exactly the same but different: promiscuity and diversity in the molecular mechanisms of action of the aryl hydrocarbon (dioxin) receptor. Toxicol.Sci. 124, 1-22.
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Okey, A. B. (2007). An aryl hydrocarbon receptor odyssey to the shores of toxicology: the Deichmann Lecture, International Congress of Toxicology-XI. Toxicol.Sci. 98, 5-38.
- ↑ Hoffman, E. C., Reyes, H., Chu, F. F., Sander, F., Conley, L. H., Brooks, B. A., and Hankinson, O. (1991). Cloning of a factor required for activity of the Ah (dioxin) receptor. Science 252, 954-958.
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Poland, A., Glover, E., and Kende, A. S. (1976). Stereospecific, high affinity binding of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin by hepatic cytosol. Evidence that the binding species is receptor for induction of aryl hydrocarbon hydroxylase. J.Biol.Chem. 251, 4936-4946.
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 Gu, Y. Z., Hogenesch, J. B., and Bradfield, C. A. (2000). The PAS superfamily: sensors of environmental and developmental signals. Annu.Rev.Pharmacol.Toxicol. 40, 519-561.
- ↑ Kewley, R. J., Whitelaw, M. L., and Chapman-Smith, A. (2004). The mammalian basic helix-loop-helix/PAS family of transcriptional regulators. Int.J.Biochem.Cell Biol. 36, 189-204.
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 Fujii-Kuriyama, Y., and Kawajiri, K. (2010). Molecular mechanisms of the physiological functions of the aryl hydrocarbon (dioxin) receptor, a multifunctional regulator that senses and responds to environmental stimuli. Proc.Jpn.Acad.Ser.B Phys.Biol.Sci. 86, 40-53.
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 Mimura, J., and Fujii-Kuriyama, Y. (2003). Functional role of AhR in the expression of toxic effects by TCDD. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta - General Subjects 1619, 263-268.
- ↑ Giesy, J. P., Kannan, K., Blankenship, A. L., Jones, P. D., and Newsted, J. L. (2006). Toxicology of PCBs and related compounds. In Endocrine Disruption Biological Bases for Health Effects in Wildlife and Humans (D. O. Norris, and J. A. Carr, Eds.), pp. 245-331. Oxford University Press, New York.
- ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 Safe, S. (1994). Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs): Environmental impact, biochemical and toxic responses, and implications for risk assessment. Critical Reviews in Toxicology 24, 87-149.
- ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 Yasui, T., Kim, E. Y., Iwata, H., Franks, D. G., Karchner, S. I., Hahn, M. E., and Tanabe, S. (2007). Functional characterization and evolutionary history of two aryl hydrocarbon receptor isoforms (AhR1 and AhR2) from avian species. Toxicol.Sci. 99, 101-117.
- ↑ 11.0 11.1 Lee, J. S., Kim, E. Y., and Iwata, H. (2009). Dioxin activation of CYP1A5 promoter/enhancer regions from two avian species, common cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo) and chicken (Gallus gallus): association with aryl hydrocarbon receptor 1 and 2 isoforms. Toxicol.Appl.Pharmacol. 234, 1-13.
- ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 12.5 Raucy, J. L., and Lasker, J. M. (2010). Current in vitro high throughput screening approaches to assess nuclear receptor activation. Curr. Drug Metab 11 (9), 806-814.
- ↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 Farmahin, R., Wu, D., Crump, D., Hervé, J. C., Jones, S. P., Hahn, M. E., Karchner, S. I., Giesy, J. P., Bursian, S. J., Zwiernik, M. J., and Kennedy, S. W. (2012). Sequence and in vitro function of chicken, ring-necked pheasant, and Japanese quail AHR1 predict in vivo sensitivity to dioxins. Environ.Sci.Technol. 46, 2967-2975.
- ↑ 14.0 14.1 14.2 14.3 Farmahin, R., Manning, G. E., Crump, D., Wu, D., Mundy, L. J., Jones, S. P., Hahn, M. E., Karchner, S. I., Giesy, J. P., Bursian, S. J., Zwiernik, M. J., Fredricks, T. B., and Kennedy, S. W. (2013b). Amino acid sequence of the ligand binding domain of the aryl hydrocarbon receptor 1 (AHR1) predicts sensitivity of wild birds to effects of dioxin-like compounds. Toxicol.Sci. 131, 139-152.
- ↑ Fujisawa, N., Ikenaka, Y., Kim, E. Y., Lee, J. S., Iwata, H., and Ishizuka, M. (2012). Molecular evidence predicts aryl hydrocarbon receptor ligand insensitivity in the peregrine falcon (Falco peregrines). European Journal of Wildlife Research 58, 167-175.
- ↑ 16.0 16.1 16.2 Manning, G. E., Farmahin, R., Crump, D., Jones, S. P., Klein, J., Konstantinov, A., Potter, D., and Kennedy, S. W. (2012). A luciferase reporter gene assay and aryl hydrocarbon receptor 1 genotype predict the embryolethality of polychlorinated biphenyls in avian species. Toxicol.Appl.Pharmacol. 263, 390-399.
- ↑ Mol, T. L., Kim, E. Y., Ishibashi, H., and Iwata, H. (2012). In vitro transactivation potencies of black-footed albatross (Phoebastria nigripes) AHR1 and AHR2 by dioxins to predict CYP1A expression in the wild population. Environ.Sci.Technol. 46, 525-533.
- ↑ Yueh, M. F., Kawahara, M., and Raucy, J. (2005). Cell-based high-throughput bioassays to assess induction and inhibition of CYP1A enzymes. Toxicol. In Vitro 19 (2), 275-287.
- ↑ 19.0 19.1 Poland, A., and Knutson, J. C. (1982). 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and related halogenated aromatic hydrocarbons: examination of the mechanism of toxicity. Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 22, 517-554.
- ↑ 20.0 20.1 Hestermann, E. V., Stegeman, J. J., and Hahn, M. E. (2000). Relative contributions of affinity and intrinsic efficacy to aryl hydrocarbon receptor ligand potency. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol 168 (2), 160-172.
- ↑ 21.0 21.1 21.2 21.3 21.4 Farmahin, R., Jones, S. P., Crump, D., Hahn, M. E., Giesy, J. P., Zwiernik, M. J., Bursian, S. J., and Kennedy, S. W. (2014). Species-specific relative AHR1 binding affinities of 2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorodibenzofuran explain avian species differences in its relative potency. Comp Biochem. Physiol C. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 161C, 21-25.
- ↑ 22.0 22.1 22.2 22.3 22.4 22.5 22.6 Karchner, S. I., Franks, D. G., Kennedy, S. W., and Hahn, M. E. (2006). The molecular basis for differential dioxin sensitivity in birds: Role of the aryl hydrocarbon receptor. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A 103 (16), 6252-6257.
- ↑ Lee, S., Shin, W. H., Hong, S., Kang, H., Jung, D., Yim, U. H., Shim, W. J., Khim, J. S., Seok, C., Giesy, J. P., and Choi, K. (2015). Measured and predicted affinities of binding and relative potencies to activate the AhR of PAHs and their alkylated analogues. Chemosphere 139, 23-29.
- ↑ Jones, S. A., Parks, D. J., and Kliewer, S. A. (2003). Cell-free ligand binding assays for nuclear receptors. Methods Enzymol. 364, 53-71.
- ↑ Gasiewicz, T. A., and Neal, R. A. (1982). The examination and quantitation of tissue cytosolic receptors for 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin using hydroxylapatite. Anal. Biochem. 124 (1), 1-11.
- ↑ Nakai, J. S., and Bunce, N. J. (1995). Characterization of the Ah receptor from human placental tissue. J Biochem. Toxicol. 10 (3), 151-159.
- ↑ Dold, K. M., and Greenlee, W. F. (1990). Filtration assay for quantitation of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) specific binding to whole cells in culture. Anal. Biochem. 184 (1), 67-73.
- ↑ Perez-Romero, P., and Imperiale, M. J. (2007). Assaying protein-DNA interactions in vivo and in vitro using chromatin immunoprecipitation and electrophoretic mobility shift assays. Methods Mol. Med. 131, 123-139.
- ↑ Heid, S. E., Walker, M. K., and Swanson, H. I. (2001). Correlation of cardiotoxicity mediated by halogenated aromatic hydrocarbons to aryl hydrocarbon receptor activation. Toxicol. Sci 61 (1), 187-196.
- ↑ 30.0 30.1 Ema, M., Ohe, N., Suzuki, M., Mimura, J., Sogawa, K., Ikawa, S., and Fujii-Kuriyama, Y. (1994). Dioxin binding activities of polymorphic forms of mouse and human arylhydrocarbon receptors. J.Biol.Chem. 269, 27337-27343.
- ↑ 31.0 31.1 Poland, A., Palen, D., and Glover, E. (1994). Analysis of the four alleles of the murine aryl hydrocarbon receptor. Mol.Pharmacol. 46, 915-921.
- ↑ Backlund, M., and Ingelman-Sundberg, M. (2004). Different structural requirements of the ligand binding domain of the aryl hydrocarbon receptor for high- and low-affinity ligand binding and receptor activation. Mol.Pharmacol. 65, 416-425.
- ↑ Murray, I. A., Reen, R. K., Leathery, N., Ramadoss, P., Bonati, L., Gonzalez, F. J., Peters, J. M., and Perdew, G. H. (2005). Evidence that ligand binding is a key determinant of Ah receptor-mediated transcriptional activity. Arch.Biochem.Biophys. 442, 59-71.
- ↑ Pandini, A., Denison, M. S., Song, Y., Soshilov, A. A., and Bonati, L. (2007). Structural and functional characterization of the aryl hydrocarbon receptor ligand binding domain by homology modeling and mutational analysis. Biochemistry 46, 696-708.
- ↑ 35.0 35.1 35.2 Pandini, A., Soshilov, A. A., Song, Y., Zhao, J., Bonati, L., and Denison, M. S. (2009). Detection of the TCDD binding-fingerprint within the Ah receptor ligand binding domain by structurally driven mutagenesis and functional analysis. Biochemistry 48, 5972-5983.
- ↑ Ramadoss, P., and Perdew, G. H. (2004). Use of 2-azido-3-[125I]iodo-7,8-dibromodibenzo-p-dioxin as a probe to determine the relative ligand affinity of human versus mouse aryl hydrocarbon receptor in cultured cells. Mol.Pharmacol. 66, 129-136.
- ↑ 37.0 37.1 37.2 Head, J. A., Hahn, M. E., and Kennedy, S. W. (2008). Key amino acids in the aryl hydrocarbon receptor predict dioxin sensitivity in avian species. Environ.Sci.Technol. 42, 7535-7541.
- ↑ 38.0 38.1 Denison, M. S., Soshilov, A. A., He, G., DeGroot, D. E., and Zhao, B. (2011). Exactly the same but different: promiscuity and diversity in the molecular mechanisms of action of the aryl hydrocarbon (dioxin) receptor. Toxicol.Sci. 124, 1-22.
- ↑ van den Berg, M., Birnbaum, L. S., Bosveld, A. T., Brunström, B., Cook, P., Feeley, M., Giesy, J. P., Hanberg, A., Hasegawa, R., Kennedy, S. W., Kubiak, T. J., Larsen, J. C., Van Leeuwen, F. X. R., Liem, A. K. D., Nolt, C., Peterson, R. E., Poellinger, L., Safe, S., Schrenk, D., Tillitt, D. E., Tysklind, M., Younes, M., Wærn, F., and Zacharewski, T. R. (1998). Toxic equivalency factors (TEFs) for PCBs, PCDDs, PCDFs for humans and wildlife. Environ.Health Perspect. 106, 775-792.
- ↑ Cohen-Barnhouse, A. M., Zwiernik, M. J., Link, J. E., Fitzgerald, S. D., Kennedy, S. W., Hervé, J. C., Giesy, J. P., Wiseman, S. B., Yang, Y., Jones, P. D., Wan, Y., Collins, B., Newsted, J. L., Kay, D. P., and Bursian, S. J. (2011b). Sensitivity of Japanese quail (Coturnix japonica), Common pheasant (Phasianus colchicus), and White Leghorn chicken (Gallus gallus domesticus) embryos to in ovo exposure to TCDD, PeCDF, and TCDF. Toxicol.Sci. 119, 93-103.
- ↑ Farmahin, R., Crump, D., Jones, S. P., Mundy, L. J., and Kennedy, S. W. (2013a). Cytochrome P4501A induction in primary cultures of embryonic European starling hepatocytes exposed to TCDD, PeCDF and TCDF. Ecotoxicology 22(4), 731-739.
- ↑ Hervé, J. C., Crump, D., Jones, S. P., Mundy, L. J., Giesy, J. P., Zwiernik, M. J., Bursian, S. J., Jones, P. D., Wiseman, S. B., Wan, Y., and Kennedy, S. W. (2010a). Cytochrome P4501A induction by 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and two chlorinated dibenzofurans in primary hepatocyte cultures of three avian species. Toxicol. Sci. 113(2), 380-391.
- ↑ Hervé, J. C., Crump, D. L., McLaren, K. K., Giesy, J. P., Zwiernik, M. J., Bursian, S. J., and Kennedy, S. W. (2010b). 2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorodibenzofuran is a more potent cytochrome P4501A inducer than 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in herring gull hepatocyte cultures. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 29(9), 2088-2095.
- ↑ Poland, A., and Glover, E. (1973). Studies on the mechanism of toxicity of the chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins. Environ.Health Perspect. 5, 245-251.
- ↑ 45.0 45.1 McFarland, V. A., and Clarke, J. U. (1989). Environmental occurrence, abundance, and potential toxicity of polychlorinated biphenyl congeners: Considerations for a congener-specific analysis. Environ.Health Perspect. 81, 225-239.
- ↑ 46.0 46.1 Omiecinski, C. J., Vanden Heuvel, J. P., Perdew, G. H., and Peters, J. M. (2011). Xenobiotic metabolism, disposition, and regulation by receptors: from biochemical phenomenon to predictors of major toxicities. Toxicol.Sci. 120 Suppl 1, S49-S75.
- ↑ Swedenborg, E., and Pongratz, I. (2010). AhR and ARNT modulate ER signaling. Toxicology 268, 132-138.
- ↑ Diani-Moore, S., Ma, Y., Labitzke, E., Tao, H., David, W. J., Anderson, J., Chen, Q., Gross, S. S., and Rifkind, A. B. (2011). Discovery and biological characterization of 1-(1H-indol-3-yl)-9H-pyrido[3,4-b]indole as an aryl hydrocarbon receptor activator generated by photoactivation of tryptophan by sunlight. Chem. Biol. Interact. 193(2), 119-128.
- ↑ Wincent, E., Bengtsson, J., Mohammadi, B. A., Alsberg, T., Luecke, S., Rannug, U., and Rannug, A. (2012). Inhibition of cytochrome P4501-dependent clearance of the endogenous agonist FICZ as a mechanism for activation of the aryl hydrocarbon receptor. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A 109(12), 4479-4484.
- ↑ Baba, T., Mimura, J., Nakamura, N., Harada, N., Yamamoto, M., Morohashi, K., and Fujii-Kuriyama, Y. (2005). Intrinsic function of the aryl hydrocarbon (dioxin) receptor as a key factor in female reproduction. Mol.Cell Biol. 25, 10040-10051.
- ↑ Fernandez-Salguero, P. M., Pineau, T., Hilbert, D. M., McPhail, T., Lee, S. S., Kimura, S., Nebert, D. W., Rudikoff, S., Ward, J. M., and Gonzalez, F. J. (1995). Immune system impairment and hepatic fibrosis in mice lacking the dioxin-binding Ah receptor. Science 268, 722-726.
- ↑ Ichihara, S., Yamada, Y., Ichihara, G., Nakajima, T., Li, P., Kondo, T., Gonzalez, F. J., and Murohara, T. (2007). A role for the aryl hydrocarbon receptor in regulation of ischemia-induced angiogenesis. Arterioscler.Thromb.Vasc.Biol. 27, 1297-1304.
- ↑ Lahvis, G. P., Lindell, S. L., Thomas, R. S., McCuskey, R. S., Murphy, C., Glover, E., Bentz, M., Southard, J., and Bradfield, C. A. (2000). Portosystemic shunting and persistent fetal vascular structures in aryl hydrocarbon receptor-deficient mice. Proc.Natl.Acad.Sci U.S.A 97, 10442-10447.
- ↑ Mimura, J., Yamashita, K., Nakamura, K., Morita, M., Takagi, T. N., Nakao, K., Ema, M., Sogawa, K., Yasuda, M., Katsuki, M., and Fujii-Kuriyama, Y. (1997). Loss of teratogenic response to 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) in mice lacking the Ah (dioxin) receptor. Genes Cells 2, 645-654.
- ↑ Schmidt, J. V., Su, G. H., Reddy, J. K., Simon, M. C., and Bradfield, C. A. (1996). Characterization of a murine Ahr null allele: involvement of the Ah receptor in hepatic growth and development. Proc.Natl.Acad.Sci U.S.A 93, 6731-6736.
- ↑ Thackaberry, E. A., Gabaldon, D. M., Walker, M. K., and Smith, S. M. (2002). Aryl hydrocarbon receptor null mice develop cardiac hypertrophy and increased hypoxia-inducible factor-1alpha in the absence of cardiac hypoxia. Cardiovasc.Toxicol. 2, 263-274.
- ↑ Zhang, N., Agbor, L. N., Scott, J. A., Zalobowski, T., Elased, K. M., Trujillo, A., Duke, M. S., Wolf, V., Walsh, M. T., Born, J. L., Felton, L. A., Wang, J., Wang, W., Kanagy, N. L., and Walker, M. K. (2010). An activated renin-angiotensin system maintains normal blood pressure in aryl hydrocarbon receptor heterozygous mice but not in null mice. Biochem.Pharmacol. 80, 197-2040.
Abnet, C.C.; Tanguay, R.L.; Heideman, W.; Peterson, R.E. 1999. Transactivation activity of human, zebrafish, and rainbow trout aryl hydrocarbon receptors expressed in COS-7 cells: Greater insight into species differences in toxic potency of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin, dibenzofuran, and biphenyl congeners. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 159, 41-51.
Andreasen, E.A.; Tanguay, R.L.; Peterson, R.E.; Heideman, W. 2002. Identification of a critical amino acid in the aryl hydrocarbon receptor. J. Biol. Chem. 277 (15), 13210-13218.
Bak, S.M.; Lida, M.; Hirano, M.; Iwata, H.; Kim, E.Y. 2013. Potencies of red seabream AHR1- and AHR2-mediated transactivation by dioxins: implications of both AHRs in dioxin toxicity. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47 (6), 2877-2885.
Clark, B.W.; Matson, C.W.; Jung, D.; Di Giulio, R.T. 2010. AHR2 mediates cardiac teratogenesis of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and PCB-126 in Atlantic killifish (Fundulus heteroclitus). Aquat. Toxicol. 99, 232-240.
Doering, J.A.; Farmahin, R.; Wiseman, S.; Beitel, S.C.; Kennedy, S.W.; Giesy, J.P.; Hecker, M. 2015. Differences in activation of aryl hydrocarbon receptors of white sturgeon relative to lake sturgeon are predicted by identities of key amino acids in the ligand binding domain. Enviro. Sci. Technol. 49, 4681-4689.
Doering, J.A.; Farmahin, R.; Wiseman, S.; Kennedy, S.; Giesy J.P.; Hecker, M. 2014. Functionality of aryl hydrocarbon receptors (AhR1 and AhR2) of white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) and implications for the risk assessment of dioxin-like compounds. Enviro. Sci. Technol. 48, 8219-8226.
Doering, J.A.; Giesy, J.P.; Wiseman, S.; Hecker, M. Predicting the sensitivity of fishes to dioxin-like compounds: possible role of the aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR) ligand binding domain. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2013, 20(3), 1219-1224.
Doering, J.A.; Wiseman, S; Beitel, S.C.; Giesy, J.P.; Hecker, M. 2014. Identification and expression of aryl hydrocarbon receptors (AhR1 and AhR2) provide insight in an evolutionary context regarding sensitivity of white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) to dioxin-like compounds. Aquat. Toxicol. 150, 27-35.
Duncan, D.M.; Burgess, E.A.; Duncan, I. 1998. Control of distal antennal identity and tarsal development in Drosophila by spineless-aristapedia, a homolog of the mammalian dioxin receptor. Genes Dev. 12, 1290-1303.
Eisner, B.K.; Doering, J.A.; Beitel, S.C.; Wiseman, S.; Raine, J.C.; Hecker, M. 2016. Cross-species comparison of relative potencies and relative sensitivities of fishes to dibenzo-p-dioxins, dibenzofurans, and polychlorinated biphenyls in vitro. Enviro. Toxicol. Chem. 35 (1), 173-181.
Emmons, R.B.; Duncan, D.; Estes, P.A.; Kiefel, P.; Mosher, J.T.; Sonnenfeld, M.; Ward, M.P.; Duncan, I.; Crews, S.T. 1999. The spineless-aristapedia and tango bHLH-PAS proteins interact to control antennal and tarsal development in Drosophila. Development. 126, 3937-3945.
Evans, B.R.; Karchner, S.I.; Franks, D.G.; Hahn, M.E. 2005. Duplicate aryl hydrocarbon receptor repressor genes (ahrr1 and ahrr2) in the zebrafish Danio rerio: structure, function, evolution, and AHR-dependent regulation in vivo. Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 441, 151-167.
Hahn, M.E. 2002. Aryl hydrocarbon receptors: diversity and evolution. Chemico-Biol. Interact. 141, 131-160.
Hahn, M.E.; Karchner, S.I.; Evans, B.R.; Franks, D.G.; Merson, R.R.; Lapseritis, J.M. 2006. Unexpected diversity of aryl hydrocarbon receptors in non-mammalian vertebrates: Insights from comparative genomics. J. Exp. Zool. A. Comp. Exp. Biol. 305, 693-706.
Hahn, M.E.; Poland, A.; Glover, E.; Stegeman, J.J. 1994. Photoaffinity labeling of the Ah receptor: phylogenetic survey of diverse vertebrate and invertebrate species. Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 310, 218-228.
Hansson, M.C.; Hahn, M.E. 2008. Functional properties of the four Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) aryl hydrocarbon receptor type 2 (AHR2) isoforms. Aquat. Toxicol. 86, 121-130.
Hansson, M.C.; Wittzell, H.; Persson, K.; von Schantz, T. 2004. Unprecedented genomic diversity of AhR1 and AhR2 genes in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.). Aquat. Toxicol. 68 (3), 219-232.
Karchner, S.I.; Franks, D.G.; Hahn, M.E. (2005). AHR1B, a new functional aryl hydrocarbon receptor in zebrafish: tandem arrangement of ahr1b and ahr2 genes. Biochem. J. 392 (1), 153-161.
Karchner, S.I.; Powell, W.H.; Hahn, M.E. 1999. Identification and functional characterization of two highly divergent aryl hydrocarbon receptors (AHR1 and AHR2) in the Teleost Fundulus heteroclitus. Evidence for a novel subfamily of ligand-binding basic helix loop helix-Per-ARNT-Sim (bHLH-PAS) factors. J. Biol. Chem. 274, 33814-33824.
Lahvis, G.P.; Bradfield, C.A. 1998. Ahr null alleles: distinctive or different? Biochem. Pharmacol. 56, 781-787.
Lavine, J.A.; Rowatt, A.J.; Klimova, T.; Whitington, A.J.; Dengler, E.; Beck, C.; Powell, W.H. 2005. Aryl hydrocarbon receptors in the frog Xenopus laevis: two AhR1 paralogs exhibit low affinity for 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD). Toxicol. Sci. 88 (1), 60-72.
Oka, K.; Kohno, S.; Ohta, Y.; Guillette, L.J.; Iguchi, T.; Katsu, Y. (2016). Molecular cloning and characterization of the aryl hydrocarbon receptors and aryl hydrocarbon receptor nuclear translocators in the American alligator. Gen. Comp. Endo. 238, 13-22.
Pongratz, I.; Mason, G.G.; Poellinger, L. Dual roles of the 90-kDa heat shock protein hsp90 in modulating functional activities of the dioxin receptor. Evidence that the dioxin receptor functionally belongs to a subclass of nuclear receptors which require hsp90 both for ligand binding activity and repression of intrinsic DNA binding activity. J. Biol. Chem. 1992, 267 (19), 13728-13734
Prasch, A.L.; Teraoka, H.; Carney, S.A.; Dong, W.; Hiraga, T.; Stegeman, J.J.; Heideman, W.; Peterson, R.E. 2003. Toxicol. Sci. Aryl hydrocarbon receptor 2 mediated 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin developmental toxicity in zebrafish. 76 (1), 138-150.
Shoots, J.; Fraccalvieri, D.; Franks, D.G.; Denison, M.S.; Hahn, M.E.; Bonati, L.; Powell, W.H. 2015. An aryl hydrocarbon receptor from the salamander Ambystoma mexicanum exhibits low sensitivity to 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin. Enviro. Sci. Technol. 49, 6993-7001.
Tanguay, R.L.; Abnet, C.C.; Heideman, W. Peterson, R.E. (1999). Cloning and characterization of the zebrafish (Danio rerio) aryl hydrocarbon receptor1. Biochimica et Biophysica Act 1444, 35-48.
Van den Berg, M.; Birnbaum, L.; Bosveld, A.T.C.; Brunstrom, B.; Cook, P.; Feeley, M.; Giesy, J.P.; Hanberg, A.; Hasegawa, R.; Kennedy, S.W.; Kubiak, T.; Larsen, J.C.; van Leeuwen, R.X.R.; Liem, A.K.D.; Nolt, C.; Peterson, R.E.; Poellinger, L.; Safe, S.; Schrenk, D.; Tillitt, D.; Tysklind, M.; Younes, M.; Waern, F.; Zacharewski, T. Toxic equivalency factors (TEFs) for PCBs, PCDDs, PECDFs for human and wildlife. Enviro. Hlth. Persp. 1998, 106, 775-792.
Van Tiem, L.A.; Di Giulio, R.T. 2011. AHR2 knockdown prevents PAH-mediated cardiac toxicity and XRE- and ARE-associated gene induction in zebrafish (Danio rerio). Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 254 (3), 280-287.
Whitlock, J.P.; Okino, S.T.; Dong, L.Q.; Ko, H.S.P.; Clarke Katzenberg, R.; Qiang, M.; Li, W. 1996. Induction of cytochrome P4501A1: a model for analyzing mammalian gene transcription. Faseb. J. 10, 809-818.
Wirgin, I.; Roy, N.K.; Loftus, M.; Chambers, R.C.; Franks, D.G.; Hahn, M.E. 2011. Mechanistic basis of resistance to PCBs in Atlantic tomcod from the Hudson River. Science. 331, 1322-1324.
Yamauchi, M.; Kim, E.Y.; Iwata, H.; Shima, Y.; Tanabe, S. Toxic effects of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) in developing red seabream (Pagrus major) embryos: an association of morphological deformities with AHR1, AHR2 and CYP1A expressions. Aquat. Toxicol. 2006, 16, 166-179.
Yasui, T.; Kim, E.Y.; Iawata, H.; Franks, D.G.; Karchner, S.I.; Hahn, M.E.; Tanabe, S. 2007. Functional characterization and evolutionary history of two aryl hydrocarbon receptor isoforms (AhR1 and AhR2) from avian species. Toxicol. Sci. 99 (1), 101-117.
Bonati, L.; Corrada, D.; Tagliabue, S.G.; Motta, S. (2017) Molecular modeling of the AhR structure and interactions can shed light on ligand-dependent activation and transformation mechanisms. Current Opinion in Toxicology 2: 42-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cotox.2017.01.011.
Sovadinová, I. , Bláha, L. , Janošek, J. , Hilscherová, K. , Giesy, J. P., Jones, P. D. and Holoubek, I. (2006), Cytotoxicity and aryl hydrocarbon receptor‐mediated activity of N‐heterocyclic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons: Structure‐activity relationships. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 25: 1291-1297. doi:10.1897/05-388R.1