WSU researchers see new plastics causing reproductive woes of old plastics

Authored by news.wsu.edu and submitted by mvea

Washington State University researchers have found that plastic products meant to replace the chemical bisphenol A, or BPA, are also causing genetic abnormalities in mice.

The discovery is a déjà vu moment for Patricia Hunt, who 20 years ago linked abnormalities in egg chromosomes to BPA released by a harsh detergent used on her lab’s mouse cages. This time, she saw reproductive defects in control animals housed in plastic cages made with BPA alternatives.

“There’s growing evidence that many of these common replacements are not safe,” said Hunt, a professor in WSU’s School of Molecular Biosciences and lead author of a study in the latest Current Biology. “We stumbled on an effect yet again. This is a more stable plastic but it induced similar effects on the process of making eggs and sperm. Importantly, when we tested the chemicals in controlled experiments, we got similar results for each of them.”

BPA has long been used in bottles, cups, medical and dental devices, and as coatings for food-can linings and cash register receipts. After Hunt and other researchers began tying BPA exposure to developmental defects in numerous animal species, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration banned it in baby bottles and children’s drinking cups. The Washington legislature has also limited its use.

Hunt and her colleagues say mice exposed to the common BPA replacement bisphenol S, or BPS, underwent changes in the way the germ cells in their testes and ovaries copy and splice DNA while producing sperm and eggs. Both sexes had problems getting DNA to recombine correctly, leading to a reduction in viable sperm and an increase in abnormal eggs. Hunt and her colleagues had similar results with the replacements BPF, BPAF, and diphenyl sulfone.

“These findings add to growing evidence of the biological risks posed by this class of chemicals,” Hunt and her colleagues write.

Problems in the male germline lasted several generations after the initial exposure.

In addition to risking human reproductive health, the replacement plastics can also be compromising the integrity of biological research.

“It’s now becoming almost impossible to run experiments without contamination,” said Hunt, called the “accidental toxicologist” by Scientific American magazine. “And it’s not that I live under my own black cloud. It’s that I have a super sensitive system. A germ line is like the canary in the coal mine. As soon as something hits, we see it. Other investigators in my facility don’t see it but it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t impact their research.”

Hunt’s WSU colleagues in the research are Tegan Horan, a research intern and the paper’s first author, as well as scientific assistants Hannah Pulcastro and Crystal Lawson and former postdoctoral fellows Mary Gieske and Caroline Sartain. Joining them are Roy Gerona and Spencer Martin of the University of California, San Francisco.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health.

ItsDijital on September 15th, 2018 at 15:38 UTC »

I can't believe no one has mentioned the largest BPA source for many people:

Thermal paper.

The kind that virtually every receipt is printed on. Thermal paper is dusted with a BPA to help the ink develop. If you are someone who handles receipts a lot, then your exposure level is likely far higher than the average person.

Not taking sides here, just want to mention it in case it is something you're concerned about.

Edit: Studies

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5453537/

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/1832525

one_mind on September 15th, 2018 at 13:23 UTC »

So I am careful to to not let my plastic food/water containers get hot (no microwaving, not hot cars, no baking in those throw-away plastic pan things), and to not clean them with harsh chemicals (just regular dish soap and water). Anyone smarter than me care to comment on how effective this strategy is at reducing my exposure?

poobender on September 15th, 2018 at 13:08 UTC »

Something that has always stuck with me about this BPA discussion is that humans have a metabolic pathway to eliminate it through urine. Mice do not.

That is a very important distinction that many people don't seem to realize or take into account. Mice studies are extremely useful, but knowing that humans can eliminate the substance and mice cannot points to the effects being dissimilar.