Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Environmental mixtures and breast cancer: identifying co-exposure patterns between understudied vs breast cancer-associated chemicals using chemical inventory informatics

Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology volume 32, pages 794–807 (2022)Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Although evidence linking environmental chemicals to breast cancer is growing, mixtures-based exposure evaluations are lacking.

Objective

This study aimed to identify environmental chemicals in use inventories that co-occur and share properties with chemicals that have association with breast cancer, highlighting exposure combinations that may alter disease risk.

Methods

The occurrence of chemicals within chemical use categories was characterized using the Chemical and Products Database. Co-exposure patterns were evaluated for chemicals that have an association with breast cancer (BC), no known association (NBC), and understudied chemicals (UC) identified through query of the Silent Spring Institute’s Mammary Carcinogens Review Database and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Toxicity Reference Database. UCs were ranked based on structure and physicochemical similarities and co-occurrence patterns with BCs within environmentally relevant exposure sources.

Results

A total of 6793 chemicals had data available for exposure source occurrence analyses. 50 top-ranking UCs spanning five clusters of co-occurring chemicals were prioritized, based on shared properties with co-occuring BCs, including chemicals used in food production and consumer/personal care products, as well as potential endocrine system modulators.

Significance

Results highlight important co-exposure conditions that are likely prevalent within our everyday environments that warrant further evaluation for possible breast cancer risk.

Impact statement

Most environmental studies on breast cancer have focused on evaluating relationships between individual, well-known chemicals and breast cancer risk. This study set out to expand this research field by identifying understudied chemicals and mixtures that may occur in everyday environments due to their patterns of commercial use. Analyses focused on those that co-occur alongside chemicals associated with breast cancer, based upon in silico chemical database querying and analysis. Particularly in instances when understudied chemicals share physicochemical properties and structural features with carcinogens, these chemical mixtures represent conditions that should be studied in future clinical, epidemiological, and toxicological studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Schematic for ranking of UCs based potential for influencing breast cancer risk.
Fig. 2: Translating chemical use inventory data to inform human exposure patterning.
Fig. 3: Clusters of chemicals arranged by human use patterns.
Fig. 4: Top ten understudied chemicals (UCs) in each cluster of interest.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All data used for these analyses are publicly available, either through CPDat [16] ToxRefDB [19], or the CompTox Chemicals Dashboard [22]. Script associated with these analyses are publicly available through the Ragerlab Github repository [59]. Data that were combined and analyzed in generating results for this specific study are provided as supplemental material (Supplementary Tables 1–10, provided online through the Ragerlab-Dataverse repository [41]).

References

  1. IBCERCC. Breast Cancer and the Environment: Prioritizing Prevention. Report of the Interagency Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Coordinating Committee (IBCERCC) 2013 [cited 2021 Jun 1]. Available from: https://www.niehs.nih.gov/about/assets/docs/ibcercc_full_508.pdf.

  2. Campeau PM, Foulkes WD, Tischkowitz MD. Hereditary breast cancer: new genetic developments, new therapeutic avenues. Hum Genet. 2008;124:31–42.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Apostolou P, Fostira F. Hereditary breast cancer: the era of new susceptibility genes. Biomed Res Int. 2013;2013:747318.

    Google Scholar 

  4. IOM. Breast Cancer and the Environment: A Life Course Approach: The Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the National Academies; 2012 [cited 2021 Jun 1]. Available from: https://www.nap.edu/catalog/13263/breast-cancer-and-the-environment-a-life-course-approach.

  5. WCRF. Diet, nutrition, physical activity and breast cancer: World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF); 2018 [cited 2021 Jun 1]. Available from: https://www.wcrf.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Breast-cancer-report.pdf.

  6. Hiatt RA, Brody JG. Environmental determinants of breast cancer. Annu Rev Public Health. 2018;39:113–33.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Gray JM, Rasanayagam S, Engel C, Rizzo J. State of the evidence 2017: an update on the connection between breast cancer and the environment. Environ Health. 2017;16:94.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Rodgers KM, Udesky JO, Rudel RA, Brody JG. Environmental chemicals and breast cancer: An updated review of epidemiological literature informed by biological mechanisms. Environ Res. 2018;160:152–82.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Carlin DJ, Rider CV, Woychik R, Birnbaum LS. Unraveling the health effects of environmental mixtures: an NIEHS priority. Environ Health Perspect. 2013;121:A6–8.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Dionisio KL, Frame AM, Goldsmith MR, Wambaugh JF, Liddell A, Cathey T, et al. Exploring consumer exposure pathways and patterns of use for chemicals in the environment. Toxicol Rep. 2015;2:228–37.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Dionisio KL, Phillips K, Price PS, Grulke CM, Williams A, Biryol D, et al. The Chemical and Products Database, a resource for exposure-relevant data on chemicals in consumer products. Sci Data. 2018;5:180125.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Isaacs KK, Dionisio K, Phillips K, Bevington C, Egeghy P, Price PS. Establishing a system of consumer product use categories to support rapid modeling of human exposure. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2020;30:171–83.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. OECD. Internationally harmonised functional product and article use categories ENV/JM/MONO(2017)14. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2017.

  14. Williams AJ, Grulke CM, Edwards J, McEachran AD, Mansouri K, Baker NC, et al. The CompTox Chemistry Dashboard: a community data resource for environmental chemistry. J Cheminform. 2017;9:61.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Grulke CM, Williams AJ, Thillanadarajah I, Richard AM EPA’s DSSTox database: History of development of a curated chemistry resource supporting computational toxicology research. Comput Toxicol. 2019;12.

  16. EPA U. The Chemical and Products Database (CPDat) MySQL Data File 2020 [cited 2020 September 23]; Version 2:[Available from: https://epa.figshare.com/articles/dataset/The_Chemical_and_Products_Database_CPDat_MySQL_Data_File/5352997/2.

  17. SSI. Mammary Carcinogens Review Database. Silent Spring Institute (SSI) 2021 [cited 2021 Nov 1]. Available from: http://sciencereview.silentspring.org/mamm_about.cfm.

  18. Rudel RA, Attfield KR, Schifano JN, Brody JG. Chemicals causing mammary gland tumors in animals signal new directions for epidemiology, chemicals testing, and risk assessment for breast cancer prevention. Cancer. 2007;109:2635–66.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Watford S, Ly Pham L, Wignall J, Shin R, Martin MT, Friedman KP. ToxRefDB version 2.0: Improved utility for predictive and retrospective toxicology analyses. Reprod Toxicol. 2019;89:145–58.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Harvey JB, Hong HH, Bhusari S, Ton TV, Wang Y, Foley JF, et al. F344/NTac rats chronically exposed to bromodichloroacetic acid develop mammary adenocarcinomas with mixed luminal/basal phenotype and Tgfbeta dysregulation. Vet Pathol. 2016;53:170–81.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Dunnick JK, Elwell MR, Huff J, Barrett JC. Chemically induced mammary gland cancer in the National Toxicology Program’s carcinogenesis bioassay. Carcinogenesis 1995;16:173–9.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. EPA U. CompTox Chemicals Dashboard Batch Search 2020 [cited 2021]; 3.5:[Available from: https://comptox.epa.gov/dashboard/dsstoxdb/batch_search.

  23. Rager JE, Clark J, Eaves LA, Avula V, Niehoff NM, Kim YH, et al. Mixtures modeling identifies chemical inducers versus repressors of toxicity associated with wildfire smoke. Sci Total Environ. 2021;775:145759.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Klaren WD, Ring C, Harris MA, Thompson CM, Borghoff S, Sipes NS, et al. Identifying attributes that influence in vitro-to-in vivo concordance by comparing in vitro Tox21 bioactivity versus in vivo DrugMatrix transcriptomic responses across 130 chemicals. Toxicol Sci. 2019;167:157–71.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Rager JE, Suh M, Chappell GA, Thompson CM, Proctor DM. Review of transcriptomic responses to hexavalent chromium exposure in lung cells supports a role of epigenetic mediators in carcinogenesis. Toxicol Lett. 2019;305:40–50.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Phillips KA, Wambaugh JF, Grulke CM, Dionisio KL, Isaacs KK. High-throughput screening of chemicals as functional substitutes using structure-based classification models. Green Chem. 2017;19:1063–74.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Leydesdorff L. On the normalization and visualization of author co-citation data: Salton’s Cosine versus the Jaccard index. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2008;59:77–85.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Rousseeuw PJ. Silhouettes: a graphical aid to the interpretation and validation of cluster analysis. J Computational Appl Math. 1987;20:53–65.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Krishna S, Berridge B, Kleinstreuer N. High-throughput screening to identify chemical cardiotoxic potential. Chem Res Toxicol. 2021;34:566–83.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Lowe CN, Phillips KA, Favela KA, Yau AY, Wambaugh JF, Sobus JR, et al. Chemical characterization of recycled consumer products using suspect screening analysis. Environ Sci Technol. 2021;55:11375–87.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Beckers LM, Busch W, Krauss M, Schulze T, Brack W. Characterization and risk assessment of seasonal and weather dynamics in organic pollutant mixtures from discharge of a separate sewer system. Water Res. 2018;135:122–33.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Patlewicz G, Ball N, Booth ED, Hulzebos E, Zvinavashe E, Hennes C. Use of category approaches, read-across and (Q)SAR: general considerations. Regul Toxicol Pharm. 2013;67:1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Yang C, Tarkhov A, Marusczyk J, Bienfait B, Gasteiger J, Kleinoeder T, et al. New publicly available chemical query language, CSRML, to support chemotype representations for application to data mining and modeling. J Chem Inf Model. 2015;55:510–28.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Wang J, Hallinger DR, Murr AS, Buckalew AR, Lougee RR, Richard AM, et al. High-throughput screening and chemotype-enrichment analysis of ToxCast phase II chemicals evaluated for human sodium-iodide symporter (NIS) inhibition. Environ Int. 2019;126:377–86.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Ring C, Sipes NS, Hsieh JH, Carberry C, Koval LE, Klaren WD, et al. Predictive modeling of biological responses in the rat liver using in vitro Tox21 bioactivity: Benefits from high-throughput toxicokinetics. Comput Toxicol. 2021;18.

  36. Zhang Z, Wang S, Li L Emerging investigator series: the role of chemical properties in human exposure to environmental chemicals. Environ Sci Process Impacts. 2021;23:1839–62.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Mansouri K, Grulke CM, Judson RS, Williams AJ. OPERA models for predicting physicochemical properties and environmental fate endpoints. J Cheminform. 2018;10:10.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Rager JE, Strynar MJ, Liang S, McMahen RL, Richard AM, Grulke CM, et al. Linking high resolution mass spectrometry data with exposure and toxicity forecasts to advance high-throughput environmental monitoring. Environ Int. 2016;88:269–80.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Auerbach S, Filer D, Reif D, Walker V, Holloway AC, Schlezinger J, et al. Prioritizing environmental chemicals for obesity and diabetes outcomes research: a screening approach using ToxCast high-throughput data. Environ Health Perspect. 2016;124:1141–54.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Reif DM, Martin MT, Tan SW, Houck KA, Judson RS, Richard AM, et al. Endocrine profiling and prioritization of environmental chemicals using ToxCast data. Environ Health Perspect. 2010;118:1714–20.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Koval LE, Dionisio KL, Friedman KP, Isaacs KK, Rager JE. Dataset for Environmental Mixtures and Breast Cancer: Identifying Co-Exposure Patterns between Understudied vs Breast Cancer-Associated Chemicals using Chemical Inventory Informatics 2022 [cited 2022 May 27]. Available from: https://doi.org/10.15139/S3/UMPCKW.

  42. CFR-Code of Federal Regulations Title 21. Sect. 81.10 (1977).

  43. Samavat H, Kurzer MS. Estrogen metabolism and breast cancer. Cancer Lett. 2015;356:231–43.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Cardona B, Rudel RA. US EPA’s regulatory pesticide evaluations need clearer guidelines for considering mammary gland tumors and other mammary gland effects. Mol Cell Endocrinol. 2020;518:110927.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Stillwell W. An Introduction to Biological Membranes Composition, Structure and Function. 2nd edition ed: Elsevier Science; 2016 June 30.

  46. Trabert B, Sherman ME, Kannan N, Stanczyk FZ. Progesterone and breast cancer. Endocr Rev. 2020;41.

  47. Kulkoyluoglu-Cotul E, Arca A, Madak-Erdogan Z. Crosstalk between estrogen signaling and breast cancer metabolism. Trends Endocrinol Metab. 2019;30:25–38.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. CDC. Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals. Vol. 3: Analysis of pooled serum samples for select chemicals, NHANES 2005–2016. National Center for Environmental Health (U.S.), Division of Laboratory Sciences; National Center for Health Statistics (U.S.); National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (U.S.). https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/105344. 2021.

  49. USGS. USGS Water Data for USA 2021. Available from: https://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis?

  50. Ring CL, Arnot JA, Bennett DH, Egeghy PP, Fantke P, Huang L, et al. Consensus modeling of median chemical intake for the U.S. population based on predictions of exposure pathways. Environ Sci Technol. 2019;53:719–32.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Baker N, Knudsen T, Williams A Abstract Sifter: a comprehensive front-end system to PubMed. F1000Res. 2017;6.

  52. Kapraun DF, Wambaugh JF, Ring CL, Tornero-Velez R, Setzer RW. A method for identifying prevalent chemical combinations in the U.S. population. Environ Health Perspect. 2017;125:087017.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Clark J, Avula V, Ring C, Eaves LA, Howard T, Santos HP, et al. Comparing the Predictivity of Human Placental Gene, microRNA, and CpG Methylation Signatures in Relation to Perinatal Outcomes. Toxicol Sci. 2021.

  54. Wambaugh JF, Wang A, Dionisio KL, Frame A, Egeghy P, Judson R, et al. High throughput heuristics for prioritizing human exposure to environmental chemicals. Environ Sci Technol. 2014;48:12760–7.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Watford SM, Grashow RG, De La Rosa VY, Rudel RA, Friedman KP, Martin MT. Novel application of normalized pointwise mutual information (NPMI) to mine biomedical literature for gene sets associated with disease: use case in breast carcinogenesis. Comput Toxicol. 2018;7:46–57.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Taylor KW, Joubert BR, Braun JM, Dilworth C, Gennings C, Hauser R, et al. Statistical approaches for assessing health effects of environmental chemical mixtures in epidemiology: lessons from an innovative workshop. Environ Health Perspect. 2016;124:A227–A9. child lead exposure for the plaintiffs in a public nuisance case related to childhood lead poisoning. None of these activities were directly related to the present study. The other authors declare they have no actual or potential competing financial interests.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Drakvik E, Altenburger R, Aoki Y, Backhaus T, Bahadori T, Barouki R, et al. Statement on advancing the assessment of chemical mixtures and their risks for human health and the environment. Environ Int. 2020;134:105267.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Rider CV, McHale CM, Webster TF, Lowe L, Goodson WH 3rd, La Merrill MA, et al. Using the key characteristics of carcinogens to develop research on chemical mixtures and cancer. Environ Health Perspect. 2021;129:35003.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Ragerlab. Ragerlab Github 2021 [cited 2021]. Available from: https://github.com/Ragerlab.

  60. ToxPrint. ToxPrint: Altamira LLC; 2021 [cited 2021 August, 6]. Available from: https://toxprint.org.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research described in this manuscript has been reviewed by the Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure, U.S. EPA, and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the agency, nor does the mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. The authors would like to thank Drs. Peter Egeghy and Chris Corton for providing internal technical review of this manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by the Institute for Environmental Health Solutions (IEHS) at the Gillings School of Global Public Health, RFA-18-01, ‘Identifying solutions that optimize the health of cancer survivors’, and through the National Institutes of Health (NIH) from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, including grant funds (P42ES031007). Support was also provided by the Intramural Research Program of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, Gillings School of Global Public Health, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

    Lauren E. Koval & Julia E. Rager

  2. The Institute for Environmental Health Solutions, Gillings School of Global Public Health, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

    Lauren E. Koval & Julia E. Rager

  3. Immediate Office of the Assistant Administrator, Office of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA

    Kathie L. Dionisio

  4. Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure, Office of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA

    Katie Paul Friedman & Kristin K. Isaacs

  5. Curriculum in Toxicology and Environmental Medicine, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

    Julia E. Rager

Authors
  1. Lauren E. Koval
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kathie L. Dionisio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Katie Paul Friedman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kristin K. Isaacs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Julia E. Rager
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

LEK, KLD, KPM, KKI, and JER were responsible for the overall research design. LEK and JER were responsible for data analyses. LEK, KLD, KPM, and KKI were responsible for data extraction and organization from utilized databases. LEK and JER were responsible for manuscript drafting. All study coauthors reviewed manuscript text and provided scientific feedback.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julia E. Rager.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Koval, L.E., Dionisio, K.L., Friedman, K.P. et al. Environmental mixtures and breast cancer: identifying co-exposure patterns between understudied vs breast cancer-associated chemicals using chemical inventory informatics. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol 32, 794–807 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41370-022-00451-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41370-022-00451-8

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links