Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-kw2vx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-11T20:13:04.196Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Sex-dependent effects of developmental exposure to bisphenol A and ethinyl estradiol on metabolic parameters and voluntary physical activity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2015

S. A. Johnson
Affiliation:
Bond Life Sciences Center, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA Department of Biomedical Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA
M. S. Painter
Affiliation:
Bond Life Sciences Center, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA Department of Biomedical Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA
A. B. Javurek
Affiliation:
Bond Life Sciences Center, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA Department of Biomedical Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA
M. R. Ellersieck
Affiliation:
Agriculture Experimental Station-Statistics, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA
C. E. Wiedmeyer
Affiliation:
Veterinary Medical Diagnostic Laboratory, Department of Veterinary Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA
J. P. Thyfault
Affiliation:
Department of Nutrition and Exercise Physiology, Research Service-Harry S. Truman Memorial Veterans Medical Center, Medicine-Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, MO, USA Department of Molecular and Integrative Physiology, Kansas University Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA
C. S. Rosenfeld*
Affiliation:
Bond Life Sciences Center, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA Department of Biomedical Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA Genetics Area Program, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA Thompson Center for Autism and Neurobehavioral Disorders, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA
*
*Address for correspondence: C. S. Rosenfeld, Biomedical Sciences and Bond Life Sciences Center, University of Missouri, 440F Bond Life Sciences Center, 1201 E. Rollins Rd., Columbia, MO 65211, USA. (Email rosenfeldc@missouri.edu)
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDC) have received considerable attention as potential obesogens. Past studies examining obesogenic potential of one widespread EDC, bisphenol A (BPA), have generally focused on metabolic and adipose tissue effects. However, physical inactivity has been proposed to be a leading cause of obesity. A paucity of studies has considered whether EDC, including BPA, affects this behavior. To test whether early exposure to BPA and ethinyl estradiol (EE, estrogen present in birth control pills) results in metabolic and such behavioral disruptions, California mice developmentally exposed to BPA and EE were tested as adults for energy expenditure (indirect calorimetry), body composition (echoMRI) and physical activity (measured by beam breaks and voluntary wheel running). Serum glucose and metabolic hormones were measured. No differences in body weight or food consumption were detected. BPA-exposed females exhibited greater variation in weight than females in control and EE groups. During the dark and light cycles, BPA females exhibited a higher average respiratory quotient than control females, indicative of metabolizing carbohydrates rather than fats. Various assessments of voluntary physical activity in the home cage confirmed that during the dark cycle, BPA and EE-exposed females were significantly less active in this setting than control females. Similar effects were not observed in BPA or EE-exposed males. No significant differences were detected in serum glucose, insulin, adiponectin and leptin concentrations. Results suggest that females developmentally exposed to BPA exhibit decreased motivation to engage in voluntary physical activity and altered metabolism of carbohydrates v. fats, which could have important health implications.

Type
Original Article
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press and the International Society for Developmental Origins of Health and Disease 2015 

Introduction

At least 35% of the US population is obese, with costs for treating ailments relating to this condition in 2008 estimated at $147 billion. 1 More than one-third of children are obese with a predisposition to type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and most of them will remain so as adults. The World Health Organization has estimated that close to 350 million people world-wide already have T2DM and that this number is increasing annually, particularly in developing countries as populations gain greater access to a so-called Western-style diet and become more sedentary.Reference Scully 2 A 2014 report by the Institute of Medicine Roundtable on Obesity and Solutions suggested that obesity has been curbed in some US states, likely due to increased physical activity and improved nutrition. 3 Yet, this summary warned that obesity rates continue to rise in other states, and importantly, the incidence of severe obesity has escalated dramatically. Further reports indicate that children are more physically inactive now than they were in past decades, which may be due to a convenient lifestyle with automated transportation, reduced accessibility to parks and other areas to play, and increasing amount of time engaged in sedentary activities.Reference Brownson, Boehmer and Luke 4 Reference Ziviani, Wadley and Ward 6 However, the dramatic rise in physical inactivity and obesity also suggests that environmental chemicals may be contributing to these disorders.Reference Baillie-Hamilton 7

There has been mounting interest as to whether developmental exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDC), including bisphenol A (BPA) may be significantly contributing to the epidemic. Most EDC are manufactured chemicals.Reference Diamanti-Kandarakis, Bourguignon and Giudice 8 BPA is one of the most ubiquitous,Reference Galloway, Cipelli and Guralnick 9 Reference Biedermann, Tschudin and Grob 11 with production reported to be 6.8 billion kilograms in 2013. 12 Its stability and pervasiveness 13 ensure continued exposure.Reference Vandenberg, Maffini, Sonnenschein, Rubin and Soto 14 BPA is detectable in the urine of 93% of the US population,Reference Calafat, Ye, Wong, Reidy and Needham 15 as well as in fetal plasma, placentaReference vom Saal, Akingbemi and Belcher 16 and breast milk.Reference Vandenberg, Hauser, Marcus, Olea and Welshons 17 In 2012, the FDA banned the production of baby bottles and sippy cups containing BPA. 18 This restriction though fails to address the transfer of BPA across the placenta and through the milk.Reference Balakrishnan, Henare, Thorstensen, Ponnampalam and Mitchell 19 Reference Vandenberg, Chahoud and Heindel 23 Moreover, fetuses and neonates lack many enzymes needed to metabolize BPA and may experience greater levels of active BPA than the mother.Reference Ikezuki, Tsutsumi, Takai, Kamei and Taketani 20 Reference Nishikawa, Iwano and Yanagisawa 22

Human epidemiological and animal model data provide evidence that early exposure to BPA is associated with later obesityReference Bhandari, Xiao and Shankar 24 Reference Miyawaki, Sakayama, Kato, Yamamoto and Masuno 46 with the potential for transgenerational transmission.Reference Manikkam, Tracey, Guerrero-Bosagna and Skinner 32 However, other conflicting rodent and human data suggest either decreased body weight or no response to BPA exposure.Reference Anderson, Peterson and Sanchez 47 Reference Ryan, Haller and Sorrell 49

The majority of the studies examining underlying mechanisms as to the obesogenic effects of BPA have focused on how this chemical affects cellular adipogenesis and differentiation,Reference Somm, Schwitzgebel and Toulotte 37 , Reference Wang, Sun, Hou, Pan and Li 50 Reference Bastos Sales, Kamstra and Cenijn 54 metabolismReference Khalil, Ebert and Wang 28 , Reference Mackay, Patterson and Khazall 31 , Reference Marmugi, Lasserre and Beuzelin 33 , Reference van Esterik, Dolle and Lamoree 40 , Reference Wei, Lin and Li 42 , Reference Garcia-Arevalo, Alonso-Magdalena and Rebelo Dos Santos 44 , Reference Hugo, Brandebourg and Woo 55 and hunger/satiety.Reference Mackay, Patterson and Khazall 31 , Reference Ronn, Lind and Orberg 56 There is scant information on how BPA exposure affects in-vivo metabolic function and voluntary (spontaneous) physical activity. Notably, the amount of time of rodents spend engaged in spontaneous activity within their home cage is a strong predictor of later adiposity and weight gain.Reference Perez-Leighton, Boland, Teske, Billington and Kotz 57 Reference Perez-Leighton, Boland, Billington and Kotz 59

Physical inactivity has risen to be the leading cause of many chronic, non-communicable diseases.Reference Bauer, Briss, Goodman and Bowman 60 Reference Booth, Laye, Lees, Rector and Thyfault 67 A few examples of the 35 chronic conditions linked with physical inactivity include obesity, other metabolic disorders (including T2DM), coronary heart disease, other cardiovascular disorders (hypertension, stroke, and congestive heart failure), depression, anxiety, cognitive dysfunction, osteoporosis and cancer. Current research has largely focused on understanding the underpinning internal causes of physical inactivity, such as genetic-predisposition, sex, overall health status, self-assessment and motivation with some interest in how the surrounding social and physical environment impacts this behavior.Reference Bauman, Reis and Sallis 68 Reference Roberts, Brown and Company 71 There is a major deficit in our understanding of how the in utero and postnatal environment shapes later motivation to engage in voluntary physical activity.

To address how BPA affects metabolism, adipose deposition and voluntary physical activity, we tested these parameters in California mice (Peromyscus californicus) developmentally exposed to BPA or ethinyl estradiol (EE) (estrogen present in birth control pills). Our prior studies indicate that early contact to these EDC in California mice can lead to other behavioral disruptions.Reference Williams, Jasarevic and Vandas 72 In addition, we sought to determine whether developmental exposure to BPA and EE leads to sex-dependent differences in these parameters, as we have observed in prior studies with this animal modelReference Williams, Jasarevic and Vandas 72 and their related deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus bairdii) cousins.Reference Jasarevic, Sieli and Twellman 73 , Reference Jasarevic, Williams and Vandas 74 This outbred animal model was also chosen as they may better mirror the genetic diversity of most human populations, and they have been proposed to be a good animal model for human metabolic disorders, including T2DM.Reference Krugner-Higby, Shadoan and Carlson 75

Materials and methods

Animal husbandry

Founder outbred adult (60–90 days of age) California mouse females and males, free of common rodent pathogens, were originally purchased from the Peromyscus Genetic Stock Center (PGSC) at the University of South Carolina (Columbia, SC, USA), and placed in quarantine for a minimum of 8 weeks to ensure that they did not carry any transmittable and zoonotic diseases. From the time the animals had been captured between 1979 and 1987, P. californicus captive stocks have been bred by the PGSC to maintain their outbred status. We have since established our own breeding colony at the University of Missouri. Additional animals are purchased, as needed, from the PGSC to maintain the outbred line. All experiments were approved by University of Missouri Animal Care and Use Committee (protocol #7753) and performed in accordance with the recommendations in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals by the National Institutes of Health. Two weeks before breeding, virgin females, 812 weeks of age were randomly assigned to receive one of the three diets: (1) a low phytoestrogen AIN93G diet supplemented with 7% by weight corn oil to minimize potential phytoestrogenic contamination that would otherwise be present with inclusion of soybean oil in the diet, (2) the same diet supplemented with 50 mg BPA/kg feed weight, which we have documented to lead to internal serum concentrations close to those measured in pregnant women unknowingly exposed to this chemicalReference Jasarevic, Sieli and Twellman 73 , Reference Sieli, Jasarevic and Warzak 76 and (3) AIN93G diet supplemented with 0.1 parts per billion of EE, as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) required estrogen positive control for BPA studies.Reference vom Saal, Richter and Ruhlen 77 The FDA has requested EE be included in BPA studies that may guide policy decisions based on the premise that BPA acts primarily as a weak estrogen.Reference Vandenberg, Maffini, Sonnenschein, Rubin and Soto 14 The diets were started 2 weeks before breeding to span the peri-conceptional period. Females were maintained on these diets throughout gestation and lactation, as described previously.Reference Williams, Jasarevic and Vandas 72 Reference Jasarevic, Williams and Vandas 74 The F1 generation sons and daughters were weaned at 30 days of age and placed on the AIN control diet. To avoid any potential litter effects, where possible, we only examined one male and one female offspring per litter.

Neonatal to post-weaning body weight measurements

At postnatal day (PND) 2, F1 pups from the three groups above were weighed (OHAUS CS200, Parsippany, NJ, USA) every other day from PND 2 to 20 and then again before and after weaning at PND 30. In litters, where there was more than a single pup, individual pups were demarcated with a distinguishing tattoo on either their front or back paws (Fine Science Tools, Foster City, CA, USA). The number of pups and litters tested is indicated in Supplementary Table S1. These F1 pups were not used for any other tests.

Indirect calorimetric testing

A separate group of F1 adult (90 days of age) animals were tested in the Promethion continuous measurement indirect calorimetry system (Sable Systems International, Las Vegas, NV, USA) for 3 days. As recommended by the company, the 1st day was considered the habituation period, and thus, measurements are only based on the last 2 days. Data were broken down into 12-h light and 12-h dark cycles. The system continuously measured each individual cage for every second of the day as opposed to most multiplexed systems, which only measure one cage at a time and thus only measure an animal’s metabolism for a certain percentage of the day. Continuous measurement systems thus dramatically increase the resolution of the system and its ability to track how spontaneous activity drives energy expenditure and respiratory quotient (RQ). In addition to measuring energy expenditure and RQ from oxygen consumption and CO2 production, the system also continuously measures activity by beam breaks (X – vertical, Y – horizontal and Z – rearing), food and water intake including monitoring the times the hoppers are touched and the amount consumed at each touch. This equipment measures all of the parameters listed above and additional ones detailed in Supplementary Table S2. The total number of F1 offspring and litters examined in the indirect calorimetric unit is listed in Supplementary Table S1. All attempts were made to test these same animals for the other tests described below. Exceptions are discussed in the relevant sections.

Voluntary wheel running

Voluntary wheel running was measured after indirect calorimetry was performed. BPA-free exercise wheels (Kaytee, Chilton, WI, USA) with a diameter of 5.75 inches were used for these studies. The wheels were connected to a bicycle computer (Sigma Sport BC12.12; Sigma Sport USA LLC, St. Charles, IL, USA) to measure total distance traveled, average speed, maximum speed and total time spent running on the wheels (Supplementary Fig. S1). The animals were tested with the exercise wheels for 5 days in a row. The total number of F1 offspring and litters examined with voluntary wheel running is listed in Supplementary Table S1. Voluntary wheel running was not tested in the first group of animals measured in the indirect calorimetry because it was only after we analyzed their data that we realized that they engaged in less voluntary physical activity.

EchoMRI

After the voluntary wheel running experiments were completed, the animals were placed in the EchoMRI-1100 (EchoMRI LLC, http://www.echomri.com/Body_Composition_Rats_2MHz.aspx, Houston, TX, USA) to measure body composition. In seconds, this equipment measured total body fat, free water (that is present in the stomach and urinary bladder), and total water mass in a non-invasive manner and without the use of anesthesia. This system is highly accurate for animals weighing between 7 and 1100 g. The total number of F1 offspring and litters examined with echoMRI is listed in Supplementary Table S1. EchoMRI was not performed in the first group of animals tested in the indirect calorimetry as the instrument was purchased and installed after this group was euthanized.

Serum hormone analyses

Food was removed at ~17:00 h the day before serum collection. The next day, fasted animals were humanely euthanized in accordance with our approved animal protocol (#7753) at ~09:00 h, and cardiac blood was collected by using a 25 gauge needle attached to a 1 ml syringe (Fisher Scientific, St. Louis, MO, USA), then placed in a 1.5 ml microcentrifuge tube, and stored on ice. After the serum clotted (~20 min after collection), the blood was centrifuged at 7500 g for 20 min, and the serum fraction pipetted and transferred to a new sterile 1.5 ml centrifuge tube. Samples were stored at −20°C until they were analyzed.

Serum glucose was determined by using a commercial clinical chemistry analyzer (Beckman-Coulter AU680, Brea, CA, USA) and automated, commercially available assay (Beckman-Coulter, Brea, CA, USA). Plasma insulin (Crystal Chem, Downers, Grove, IL, USA. Catalog # 90080), adiponectin (Crystal Chem, Catalog # 80569) and leptin (Crystal Chem, Catalog # 90030) concentrations were analyzed in general according to the manufacturer’s instructions for each of these ELISA kits. However, for adiponectin, plasma was diluted 1:2 to 1:6 before analyses. Serum insulin and leptin were analyzed with undiluted samples. The number of replicates tested for each group is listed in Supplementary Table S1. Because of insufficient serum, hormone and metabolite analyses could not be measured in some of the adult animals tested in the indirect calorimetry unit.

Statistical analyses

SAS version 9.2 software analyses software (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA) was employed for these analyses. Unless otherwise stated, the reported data are based on mean±standard error of the mean.

F1 pup body weight measurements

These data were analyzed as a randomized complete block design in which the model contained the effects of parents (combination of dam and sire), day, sex and the interaction of day X sex. All mean differences were determined by using Fisher’s least significance difference (LSD). PROC MIXED procedure in SAS 9.2 was used in this analysis.

Indirect calorimetric testing

The data were analyzed as a repeated measurement analysis in which the main plot contained the effects of the three maternal diets and two offspring sexes. The denominator of F for the main plot was litter within maternal diet and offspring sex. The subplot contained the time series of both in day and cycle. The day and cycle were factorial arranged in which the cycle contained two cycles (dark and light) and day contained the 2 days in which animals were measured in this unit. The subplot effect of day and cycle and day×cycle and the interactions of day and cycle with the main plot effect were tested using litter within maternal diet, offspring sex, day and cycle as the denominator of F. Fisher’s protected LSD was tested if the overall of F was significant.

EchoMRI

The data were analyzed as a complete randomized design (CRD) in which treatments were arranged as a three by two factorial (three maternal diets and two offspring sexes). Since some pups came from the same litter, dam within maternal diet and offspring sex was used as the denominator of F. If the overall F was significant, then differences were determined using Fisher’s protected LSD.

Voluntary wheel running

The data were analyzed as a repeated measurement design in which the main plot contained maternal diet and offspring sex and maternal diet×offspring sex in a three by two factorial design. The subplot contained day and all possible interactions with the main plot effect. The denominator of F for the main plot was dam within maternal diet and offspring sex. The denominator of F for the subplot effects was dam within maternal diet, offspring sex and day. Mean differences were determined using Fisher’s protected LSD when the overall F test was significant.

Serum hormone data

For these data, the litter was considered as the experimental unit. The data were analyzed as a simple 3×2 factorial arrangement (three treatments and two sexes) considering the design as a CRD. If the overall F was significant, a Fisher’s protected LSD was performed.

Results

Eating and drinking

There were no differences based on diet, cycle and sex for total amount of food consumed (Fig. 1a and 1b). In the AIN and EE groups, males consumed more food during the dark compared with the light cycle (P value range=0.05). No such difference though was detected in BPA males. BPA females ate more during the light than the dark cycle (P=0.04). EE females ate more during the light cycle than EE males (P=0.05). Total feeding time varied based on sex, diet and cycle (Fig. 1c and 1d). AIN and EE females spent more time eating during the dark than light cycle (P value range ⩽0.0001–0.001). During the dark cycle, EE females spent more time eating than BPA females (Fig. 2c, P<0.04). Males in the EE group spent more time eating in the dark cycle (P=0.0001).

Fig. 1 Total amount eaten and eating episodes. (a) Total amount eaten for females. (b) Total amount eaten for males. (c) Feeding episodes for females. (d) Feeding episodes for males. *P=0.04. BPA, bisphenol A; EE, ethinyl estradiol.

Fig. 2 Body weight and energy expenditure. (a) Body weight for females and males. (b) Total energy expenditure for females. (c) Total energy expenditure for males. *P=0.02. BPA, bisphenol A; EE, ethinyl estradiol.

Total water uptake and drinking episodes varied according to maternal diet, sex and cycle (Supplementary Fig. S2a and b). BPA males drank less water than AIN males during the dark and light cycles (Supplementary Fig. S2b, P value range=0.01). During the dark cycle, BPA males also drank less water than BPA females (P=0.01). In the EE group, females drank more water during the light cycle (P=0.03). BPA females exhibited decreased drinking episodes during the dark cycle than AIN females (Supplementary Fig. S2c, P=0.02). For all maternal treatment groups and sexes, the bouts of drinking was more during the dark cycle (Supplementary Fig. S2c and d, P value range <0.0001–0.0007). During this time period, females in the AIN group also engaged in more drinking episodes compared with AIN males (P=0.02).

Body weight, energy expenditure and RQ

For the neonatal to peri-weaning body weight assessments, no differences were detected based on sex of the F1 pups. Therefore, male and female pup data within each litter were combined. From birth to 2 days post-weaning, there were no differences in body weight in BPA compared with control pups (Fig. 2a). At the peri-weaning stage, EE pups weighed less than controls (P=0.02). There were, however, no differences in body weight at 90 days of age for females or males in any of the treatment groups (Fig. 2b).

Total energy expenditure indicates how many calories are burned or, in other words, it is sum of internal heat produced and external work. There were differences in this category based on maternal diet, sex and cycle. BPA females expended less total energy during the dark cycle than EE females (Fig. 2c, P=0.02). In all maternal diet groups and sexes, more calories were burned during the dark compared with the light cycle (Fig. 2c and 2d, P value⩽0.0001). EE females had greater total energy expenditure than EE males during the dark cycle (P value⩽0.0001).

A greater RQ indicates that an animal is burning more carbohydrates relative to fats (Fig. 3a and 3b). During the light and dark cycles, BPA females exhibited a higher average RQ than AIN females (P value range=0.02–0.03). The resting RQ for the 30 min (R_RQ_30) of lowest activity was greater in BPA females during the dark and light cycles compared with AIN females (Fig. 3c, P=0.02–0.01). BPA females also showed an elevated R_RQ_30 compared with BPA males during both cycles (Fig. 3c and 3d, P=0.03). The average RQ during 15 min of peak energy expenditure (A_RQ_15) was greater in BPA females than AIN females (Figure S3, P=0.03). No differences in A_RQ_15 were detected for the male groups.

Fig. 3 Respiratory quotient (RQ). (a) Average RQ for females. (b) Average RQ for males. (c) Resting RQ for 30 min of lowest activity (R_RQ_30) for females. (d) R_RQ_30 for males. *P⩽0.05, **P=0.01. BPA, bisphenol A; EE, ethinyl estradiol.

Voluntary physical activity

The indirect calorimetry unit allows several assessments of voluntary physical activity in a home cage system, including the total number of times the animals breaks beams on the X, Y and Z axis, which allows for calculations of total meters traveled for both running and voluntary locomotion, total meters walked or pedestrian locomotion, walking or pedestrian speed, percentage of time spent walking, percentage of time remaining still in the home cage, percentage of time spent sleeping and total hours spent sleeping.

During the dark cycle, AIN females broke the XYZ beams more times than BPA and EE females, suggestive of decreased activity in these latter treatment groups (Fig. 4a, P value range=0.03–0.05). For all groups and sex, the combined beams were broken more times during the dark than the light cycle (Fig. 4a and 4b, P value range=0.0001). In the AIN group, there was also a trend for females to demonstrate this behavior more than males during the dark cycle (P=0.06).

Fig. 4 XYZ beam breaks and total distance traveled. (a) XYZ beam breaks for females. (b) XYZ beam breaks for males. (c) Total distance traveled for females. (d) Total distance traveled for males. *P⩽0.05, **P=0.0003. BPA, bisphenol A; EE, ethinyl estradiol.

Consistent with the XYZ beam break data, AIN females traveled more distance during the dark cycle than BPA and EE females (Fig. 4c, P value range=0.0003–0.02). For all groups and sex, the combined distanced traveled was greater during the dark than the light cycle (Fig. 4c and 4d, P value range=0.0001–0.002). AIN females traveled more distance than AIN males during the dark cycle (P value=0.0007).

The walking speed also varied according to maternal treatment, sex and cycle. AIN females were quicker than BPA females during the dark cycle (Fig. 5a, P=0.004). Females in all three treatment groups were speedier during the dark compared with the light cycle (Fig. 5a and 5b, P value range=0.0001–0.006). In contrast, only males in the EE group demonstrated any difference in speed based on the dark compared with light cycle (P value=0.007). AIN females walked faster than AIN males during the dark cycle (P value=0.04).

Fig. 5 Average walking speed. (a) Walking speed for females. (b) Walking speed for males. *P=0.004. BPA, bisphenol A; EE, ethinyl estradiol.

The percentage of time spent walking and remaining still also differed based on all three variables. AIN females spent greater percentage of the dark cycle walking around the home cage than BPA females (Fig. 6a, P value=0.009). The percentage of time spent walking during the dark cycle was greater for all treatments and sex than the light cycle (Fig. 6a and 6b, P value<0.0001). In the AIN group, females spent greater percentage of time walking around during the dark cycle than AIN males (P value=0.009). The percentage of time remaining still during the dark compared with the light cycle showed the opposite results as percentage of time spent walking. During the dark cycle, AIN females spent less time remaining still compared with BPA and EE females (Fig. 6c, P value range=0.004–0.03). All treatments and sexes spent less percentage of time remaining still in the dark v. the light cycle (Fig. 6c and 6d, P value<0.0001). AIN males spent greater percentage of time remaining still during the dark cycle than AIN females (P=0.02).

Fig. 6 Percentage of time spent walking and remaining still. (a) Percentage of time spent walking for females. (b) Percentage of time spent walking for males. (c) Percentage of time spent remaining still for females. (d) Percentage of time spent remaining still for males. *P=0.009, **P=0.03. BPA, bisphenol A; EE, ethinyl estradiol.

In line with the above results, time spent sleeping and total hours asleep varied according to maternal diet, sex and cycle. AIN females spent less percentage of time and total hours sleeping compared with BPA females (Fig. 7a and 7c, P value range=0.04–0.004). Percentage of time spent sleeping and total hours asleep for all treatments and sexes was predictably less during the dark compared with the light cycle (Fig. 7, P value<0.0001). In contrast to the above behaviors, there were no sex differences in sleeping percentage or total hours slept for the AIN group.

Fig. 7 Percentage of time and total hours spent sleeping. (a) Percentage of time spent sleeping for females. (b) Percentage of time spent sleeping for males. (c) Total hours spent asleep for females. (d) Total hours spent asleep for males. *P=0.04, **P=0.004. BPA, bisphenol A; EE, ethinyl estradiol.

echoMRI results

There were no differences in body fat or total and free water for AIN males or females (Supplementary Figs S4, S5a and b). The only difference in this experiment was that BPA males averaged more free water than EE males (Supplementary Fig. S5b, P=0.03). It is not clear though the significance of this finding.

Voluntary wheel running

There were no differences in distance traveled or average speed based on maternal diet or offspring sex (Supplementary Fig. S6).

Serum glucose and metabolic hormone analyses

There were no differences in glucose, insulin, leptin or adiponectin based on maternal diet or offspring sex (Supplementary Fig. S7).

Discussion

There were three main goals of this work. The first was to determine whether developmental exposure to BPA or EE in our rodent model, California mice, altered whole body outcome measures, including food intake, systemic energy metabolism and correspondingly increased body weight. The second attendant goal was to determine if exposed animals exhibited alterations in home cage activity and voluntary physical inactivity. Finally, we sought to determine whether BPA and EE-exposed animals demonstrated alterations in serum metabolites and metabolic hormones that could potentiate their risk for obesity and T2DM.

In terms of the first goal, we did not detect any difference in body weight from PND 2 to peri-weaning in BPA compared with control pups. For reasons that are not clear, EE pups weighed less than control pups at peri-weaning. However, we did not detect any differences in body weight for male and female offspring in the BPA and EE groups when they were tested as adults.

Several prior animal model and human studies have examined for an association between developmental exposure to BPA and increased body weight later in life. Our current findings are consistent with an earlier report showing no differences at adulthood for CD-1 mice exposed during gestation and lactation to one part per billion BPA in the diet compared with controls.Reference Ryan, Haller and Sorrell 49 Another study with the same strain of mice perinatally exposed to BPA showed increased body weight later in life.Reference Mackay, Patterson and Khazall 31 Body composition was not different throughout the lifespan for female or male C57Bl6J mice perinatally exposed to BPA.Reference Anderson, Peterson and Sanchez 47 A cross-sectional study in humans suggested that 9 year old daughters whose mothers who had greater BPA concentrations while pregnant were more likely to exhibit decreased body mass index, body fat and overweight/obesity; whereas, children with higher urinary BPA concentrations at this age showed greater adiposity.Reference Harley, Aguilar Schall and Chevrier 48 Other rodent and human studies suggest that early exposure to BPA is associated with increased body weight later in life.Reference Bhandari, Xiao and Shankar 24 Reference Miyawaki, Sakayama, Kato, Yamamoto and Masuno 46 The conflicting animal model data may be due to the species examined, varying windows of exposure (periconceptional, gestational and/or lactational), dose tested and assement period (weanling, pubertal or adulthood). It is possible that differences based on BPA/EE exposure and sex might emerge with age, although 90 days of age, when the animals were examined herein, is routinely used for adult testing.

In many inbred rodent models, such as C57Bl6J, males weigh 10–30% more than females. 78 , Reference Hong, Stubbins, Smith, Harvey and Núñez 79 However, such sex differences were not observed in California mice on the AIN control diet. Adult California mice have been reported to weigh around 33.2–54.4 g, 80 which is similar to our current findings. Other studies with California mice indicate that males and females demonstrate comparable body weight (table 2 inReference Campi, Jameson and Trainor 81 ) and (table 6 inReference Greenberg, Laman-Maharg and Campi 82 ). Peromyscus are evolutionarily distinct from Mus and Rattus with over 25 million years of separation from a common ancestor.Reference Steppan, Adkins and Anderson 83 It is thus not surprising that sexually dimorphic differences in body weight are absent in California mice. In addition, the life history and sexual selection pressures in this species are distinct from most laboratory rodent models. Unlike mice and rats, California mice are monogamous, biparental, and both males and females defend the nest and surrounding territory.Reference Jasarevic, Bailey and Crossland 84 Reference Gubernick and Alberts 86

While a difference in total amount of food consumed was evident based on light cycle, there was no difference in food consumption for females or males exposed to BPA or EE relative to control counterparts. One study with CD-1 mice indicated that females perinatally exposed to BPA consumed more food and were heavier.Reference Mackay, Patterson and Khazall 31

While the treatments did not effect energy expenditure, BPA-exposed females demonstrated a greater RQ than AIN females during both cycles. It is uncertain why similar effects were not observed in EE-exposed females. However, the results suggest that these metabolic effects of BPA might be independent of estrogen receptor binding and activation, and instead, involve other steroid or non-steroid receptor pathways.Reference Alonso-Magdalena, Ropero and Soriano 87 Reference Rubin 89 Small but statistical differences in RQ have been repeatedly noted between lean and obese human subjects. The most prominent hypothesis is that elevated RQ leads to reduced fat oxidation and greater fat deposition over time. In addition, the metabolic inflexibility concept that has gained favor in the obesity field suggests that obese individuals have an elevated RQ during both fasting and fed conditions, while lean individuals have low RQ during fasting and high RQ during fed conditions, respectively.Reference Galgani, Moro and Ravussin 90 , Reference Thyfault, Rector and Noland 91 Again, the concept is that this leads to differences in substrate storage patterns (fat v. muscle), which affect body composition. Therefore, the greater RQ detected in BPA females may predispose them to other metabolic disorders, including obesity.

In relation to goal two, the most striking finding in the current study was that females developmentally exposed to BPA, and to a lesser extent EE, were less active, especially during the night time hours. This manifested in several ways. These females voluntarily moved around the cage less during this time, were slower moving, drank less water and instead spent more time asleep compared with control counterparts. It is uncertain why early exposure to BPA and EE decreased voluntary physical activity in females but not males. Observed sex differences might be due to gonadal steroid hormones or sex-chromosomal dependent. Another possibility is that the brain regions (discussed below) governing voluntary physical activity may be more vulnerable to EDC-induced programming disturbances in females compared with males. These chemicals may also lead to underpinning sex-dependent epimutations in these brain areas.Reference Rosenfeld and Trainor 92

The combination of decreased home cage activity and increased RQ value suggests that females exposed to BPA, and possibly EE, may be prone to later metabolic disorders. It is also possible that no differences in body weight are detected when the animals are maintained on regular chow diet. However, placement of such females on a high fat diet might potentiate increased body weight gain and ensuing metabolic diseases. Studies are currently underway to test this hypothesis.

We presumed that differences would also be observed in the voluntary wheel running. It may be that in the typical home cage setting, BPA-exposed females are not stimulated to the same extent as controls to engage in voluntary physical activity. Provisioning though with an external stimulus such as a running wheel may mitigate these differences. If the findings translate to humans, it suggests that studies should be designed to examine whether children exposed to BPA are at risk for metabolic disorders due to physical inactivity. If so, they may benefit from various exercise promoting activities. An additional consideration is that the wheels were only placed in the cages for a short period. Differences between treatment groups might have emerged if the animals had continual access to the running wheel from weaning through adulthood. In essence, those in the BPA and EE groups may have become habituated and less interested in using the wheels compared with those in the control group. This possibility warrants further exploration.

Suppression of voluntary physical activity in the home cage setting may be due to BPA/EE disruptions in various brain regions, including the hypothalamus, hippocampus, amygdala, pre-frontal cortical region, nucleus accumbens, caudate-putamen, mid-brain, locus coeruleus and pons. These regions all govern this trait.Reference Roberts, Brown and Company 71 , Reference Rhodes, Garland and Gammie 93 Reference Teske, Perez-Leighton, Billington and Kotz 99 Further, these areas have already been shown to be affected by developmental exposure to BPA or EE.Reference Chen, Zhou, Bai, Zhou and Chen 100 Reference Yaoi, Itoh and Nakamura 119 Specific neural transcripts associated with voluntary physical activity whose expression pattern might be altered by EDC exposure include DeltaFosb,Reference Werme, Messer and Olson 120 dopamine receptor and transporter (Drd1-5 and SlcA3),Reference Alyea and Watson 121 Reference Garland, Schutz and Chappell 127 Bdnf,Reference Kolb, Rezende and Holness 98 , Reference Chen, Jing and Bath 128 , Reference Berchtold, Kesslak, Pike, Adlard and Cotman 129 orexin and orexin receptor (Oxa and Oxr).Reference Perez-Leighton, Boland, Teske, Billington and Kotz 57 , Reference Perez-Leighton, Boland, Billington and Kotz 59 , Reference Teske, Perez-Leighton, Billington and Kotz 99 , Reference Teske, Billington and Kotz 130 Reference Perez-Leighton, Billington and Kotz 132 Future studies will examine how early exposure to BPA and EE affects these brain regions and candidate genes, as such experiments might reveal the underlying mechanisms of how BPA/EE suppresses this behavior in female California mice.

The few other studies examining how developmental exposures to BPA and the in utero environment as a whole affects spontaneous activity in animal models have yielded mixed results. In other rodent models, BPA-exposed males were reported to be hyperactive.Reference van Esterik, Dolle and Lamoree 40 , Reference Anderson, Peterson and Sanchez 47 , Reference Nojima, Takata and Masuno 133 , Reference Ishido, Yonemoto and Morita 134 One study that simultaneously examined energy expenditure and physical inactivity reported that BPA-exposed females were more hyperactive than control females and both BPA-exposed males and females demonstrated elevated energy expenditure.Reference Anderson, Peterson and Sanchez 47 However, closer examination of this work reveals that the reported P values failed to reach the generally accepted significance cut-off of P⩽0.05. Other work supports our current findings. Developmental exposure to BPA has been reported to decrease voluntary physical activity in female ratsReference Farabollini, Porrini and Dessi-Fulgheri 135 and zebrafish.Reference Wang, Sun, Hou, Pan and Li 50 Fetal growth restriction of a/a (wild-type) female mice gestated by viable yellow (A vy /a) mice mothers [who possess an intracisternal A particle with its own cryptic promoter site that drives constitutive and ubiquitous expression of the agouti (A) gene] results in them engaging in less physical activity, expending less energy expenditure, and becoming obese at adulthood compared with control a/a females.Reference Baker, Li, Kohorst and Waterland 136 The above contradictory findings might be due to variation in the in utero environmental insult, dosage in the case of BPA, windows of exposure and animal model examined.

Our prediction at the outset was that there would be differences in serum metabolites and hormones due to early BPA/EE exposure. However, no differences in glucose, insulin, leptin or adiponectin were detected in response to maternal diet or offspring sex. Another study with C57 females developmentally exposed to the same dose tested herein (50 mg/kg feed weight) did not find significant changes in glucose, insulin and leptin but increased adiponectin concentrations were reported.Reference Anderson, Peterson and Sanchez 47 Other results indicate that BPA exposure results in hyperglycemia, disruptions in glucose-stimulated insulin release, and elevates leptin concentrations.Reference Mackay, Patterson and Khazall 31 , Reference Garcia-Arevalo, Alonso-Magdalena and Rebelo Dos Santos 44 Besides some of the above confounding factors, diet, pregnancy status, exposure to other environmental chemicals and genetic background may also be important considerations. For instance, dams exposed during gestation to BPA demonstrated glucose intolerance and insulin insensitivity. However, treatment of non-pregnant female mice with BPA failed to elicit these same changes.Reference Alonso-Magdalena, Garcia-Arevalo, Quesada and Nadal 45 Long-term treatment of non-obese diabetic mice with BPA exacerbated spontaneous insulitis and diabetes development.Reference Bodin, Bolling and Samuelsen 137 Male mice maintained on a high fat diet and concurrently exposed to BPA became glucose intolerant and insulin resistant but did not show any differences in white adipose tissue and percentage of body fat relative to those on a high fat diet but not exposed to this chemical.Reference Moon, Jeong and Jung Oh 138 The animal model examined, dose and timing of BPA exposure, and serum hormone or metabolites measured may explain some of the conflicting findings, including our own with BPA-exposed California mice.

In conclusion, developmental exposure of California mice to BPA or EE did not increase body weight in early adulthood, food intake or glucose and serum metabolite hormones when they were maintained on a control diet. The most notable finding though was that BPA and EE-exposed females were significantly less active, and the former group exhibited a greater RQ value than control females, indicative of altered metabolism of carbohydrates v. fats. Follow-up studies are underway to determine if such lifestyle and metabolic changes predisposes these females to later obesity and other metabolic disorders, especially when maintained on a high fat diet.

Acknowledgments

We thank the undergraduate research assistants who helped in the animal husbandry and provided technical assistance.

Financial Support

The studies were supported by NIH Grants 5R21ES023150 (to C.S.R.) and R01DK088940 (JPT).

Conflicts of Interest

None.

Ethical Standards

The authors confirm that all procedures were performed in accordance with the recommendations detailed in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals by the National Institutes of Health and have been approved by the University of Missouri Animal Care and Use Committee.

Supplementary Material

To view supplementary material for this article, please visit http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S2040174415001488

References

1. CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity; CDC 24/7: Saving Lives, Protecting People. Adult Obesity Facts. http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html.Google Scholar
2. Scully, T. Diabetes in numbers. Nature. 2012; 485, S2S3.Google Scholar
3. Roundtable on Obesity Solutions; Food and Nutrition Board; Institute of Medicine. In The Current State of Obesity Solutions in the United States: Workshop Summary, 2014. National Academies Press: Washington, DC.Google Scholar
4. Brownson, RC, Boehmer, TK, Luke, DA. Declining rates of physical activity in the United States: what are the contributors? Annu Rev Public Health. 2005; 26, 421443.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Gray, CE, Larouche, R, Barnes, JD, et al. Are we driving our kids to unhealthy habits? Results of the active healthy kids Canada 2013 report card on physical activity for children and youth. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2014; 11, 60096020.Google Scholar
6. Ziviani, J, Wadley, D, Ward, H, et al.. A place to play: socioeconomic and spatial factors in children’s physical activity. Aust Occup Ther J. 2008; 55, 211.Google Scholar
7. Baillie-Hamilton, PF. Chemical toxins: a hypothesis to explain the global obesity epidemic. J Altern Complement Med. 2002; 8, 185192.Google Scholar
8. Diamanti-Kandarakis, E, Bourguignon, JP, Giudice, LC, et al. Endocrine-disrupting chemicals: an Endocrine Society scientific statement. Endocr Rev. 2009; 30, 293342.Google Scholar
9. Galloway, T, Cipelli, R, Guralnick, J, et al. Daily bisphenol A excretion and associations with sex hormone concentrations: results from the InCHIANTI adult population study. Environ Health Perspect. 2010; 118, 16031608.Google Scholar
10. He, Y, Miao, M, Herrinton, LJ, et al. Bisphenol A levels in blood and urine in a Chinese population and the personal factors affecting the levels. Environ Res. 2009; 109, 629633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Biedermann, S, Tschudin, P, Grob, K. Transfer of bisphenol A from thermal printer paper to the skin. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2010; 398, 571576.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Grand View Research. Global bisphenol A (BPA) market by appliation (appliances, automotive, consumer, construction, electrical & electronics) expected to reach USD 20.03 billion by 2020. Retrieved 24 July 2014 from http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/2009287.Google Scholar
13. Environment Canada. Screening assessment for the challenge phenol, 4,4’ -(1-methylethylidene)bis-(bisphenol A) Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number 80-05-7. (ed. Ministers of the Environment and of Health), 2008; pp. 1–107.Google Scholar
14. Vandenberg, LN, Maffini, MV, Sonnenschein, C, Rubin, BS, Soto, AM. Bisphenol-A and the great divide: a review of controversies in the field of endocrine disruption. Endocr Rev. 2009; 30, 7595.Google Scholar
15. Calafat, AM, Ye, X, Wong, LY, Reidy, JA, Needham, LL. Exposure of the U.S. population to bisphenol A and 4-tertiary-octylphenol: 2003-2004. Environ Health Perspect. 2008; 116, 3944.Google Scholar
16. vom Saal, FS, Akingbemi, BT, Belcher, SM, et al. Chapel Hill bisphenol A expert panel consensus statement: integration of mechanisms, effects in animals and potential to impact human health at current levels of exposure. Reprod Toxicol. 2007; 24, 131138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Vandenberg, LN, Hauser, R, Marcus, M, Olea, N, Welshons, WV. Human exposure to bisphenol A (BPA). Reprod Toxicol. 2007; 24, 139177.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19. Balakrishnan, B, Henare, K, Thorstensen, EB, Ponnampalam, AP, Mitchell, MD. Transfer of bisphenol A across the human placenta. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 202, 393, e391e397.Google Scholar
20. Ikezuki, Y, Tsutsumi, O, Takai, Y, Kamei, Y, Taketani, Y. Determination of bisphenol A concentrations in human biological fluids reveals significant early prenatal exposure. Hum Reprod. 2002; 17, 28392841.Google Scholar
21. Kawamoto, Y, Matsuyama, W, Wada, M, et al. Development of a physiologically based pharmacokinetic model for bisphenol A in pregnant mice. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2007; 224, 182191.Google Scholar
22. Nishikawa, M, Iwano, H, Yanagisawa, R, et al. Placental transfer of conjugated bisphenol A and subsequent reactivation in the rat fetus. Environ Health Perspect. 2010; 118, 11961203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23. Vandenberg, LN, Chahoud, I, Heindel, JJ, et al.. Urinary, circulating, and tissue biomonitoring studies indicate widespread exposure to bisphenol A. Environ Health Perspect. 2010; 118, 10551070.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24. Bhandari, R, Xiao, J, Shankar, A. Urinary bisphenol A and obesity in U.S. children. Am J Epidemiol. 2013; 177, 12631270.Google Scholar
25. Braun, JM, Lanphear, BP, Calafat, AM, et al. Early-life bisphenol A exposure and child body mass index: a prospective cohort study. Environ Health Perspect. 2014; 122, 12391245.Google Scholar
26. Carwile, JL, Michels, KB. Urinary bisphenol A and obesity: NHANES 2003-2006. Environ Res. 2011; 111, 825830.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27. Fenichel, P, Chevalier, N, Brucker-Davis, F. Bisphenol A: an endocrine and metabolic disruptor. Ann Endocrinol (Paris). 2013; 74, 211220.Google Scholar
28. Khalil, N, Ebert, JR, Wang, L, et al. Bisphenol A and cardiometabolic risk factors in obese children. Sci Total Environ. 2014; 470–471, 726732.Google Scholar
29. Ko, A, Hwang, MS, Park, JH, et al.. Association between urinary bisphenol A and waist circumference in Korean adults. Toxicol Res. 2014; 30, 3944.Google Scholar
30. Li, DK, Miao, M, Zhou, Z, et al. Urine bisphenol-A level in relation to obesity and overweight in school-age children. PLoS One. 2013; 8, e65399.Google Scholar
31. Mackay, H, Patterson, ZR, Khazall, R, et al.. Organizational effects of perinatal exposure to bisphenol-A and diethylstilbestrol on arcuate nucleus circuitry controlling food intake and energy expenditure in male and female CD-1 mice. Endocrinology. 2013; 154, 14651475.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32. Manikkam, M, Tracey, R, Guerrero-Bosagna, C, Skinner, MK. Plastics derived endocrine disruptors (BPA, DEHP and DBP) induce epigenetic transgenerational inheritance of obesity, reproductive disease and sperm epimutations. PLoS One. 2013; 8, e55387.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33. Marmugi, A, Lasserre, F, Beuzelin, D, et al. Adverse effects of long-term exposure to bisphenol A during adulthood leading to hyperglycaemia and hypercholesterolemia in mice. Toxicology. 2014; 325c, 133143.Google Scholar
34. Schneyer, A. Getting big on BPA: role for BPA in obesity? Endocrinology. 2011; 152, 33013303.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
35. Schug, TT, Janesick, A, Blumberg, B, Heindel, JJ. Endocrine disrupting chemicals and disease susceptibility. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2011; 127, 204215.Google Scholar
36. Shankar, A, Teppala, S, Sabanayagam, C. Urinary bisphenol a levels and measures of obesity: results from the national health and nutrition examination survey 2003-2008. ISRN Endocrinol. 2012; 2012, 965243.Google Scholar
37. Somm, E, Schwitzgebel, VM, Toulotte, A, et al. Perinatal exposure to bisphenol a alters early adipogenesis in the rat. Environ Health Perspect. 2009; 117, 15491555.Google Scholar
38. Trasande, L, Attina, TM, Blustein, J. Association between urinary bisphenol A concentration and obesity prevalence in children and adolescents. JAMA. 2012; 308, 11131121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
39. Valvi, D, Casas, M, Mendez, MA, et al. Prenatal bisphenol a urine concentrations and early rapid growth and overweight risk in the offspring. Epidemiology. 2013; 24, 791799.Google Scholar
40. van Esterik, JC, Dolle, ME, Lamoree, MH, et al. Programming of metabolic effects in C57BL/6JxFVB mice by exposure to bisphenol A during gestation and lactation. Toxicology. 2014; 321, 4052.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
41. Wang, T, Li, M, Chen, B, et al. Urinary bisphenol A (BPA) concentration associates with obesity and insulin resistance. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2012; 97, E223E227.Google Scholar
42. Wei, J, Lin, Y, Li, Y, et al. Perinatal exposure to bisphenol A at reference dose predisposes offspring to metabolic syndrome in adult rats on a high-fat diet. Endocrinology. 2011; 152, 30493061.Google Scholar
43. Heindel, JJ, Schug, TT. The obesogen hypothesis: current status and implications for human health. Curr Enviro Health Rpt. 2014; 1, 333340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
44. Garcia-Arevalo, M, Alonso-Magdalena, P, Rebelo Dos Santos, J, et al. Exposure to bisphenol-A during pregnancy partially mimics the effects of a high-fat diet altering glucose homeostasis and gene expression in adult male mice. PLoS One. 2014; 9, e100214.Google Scholar
45. Alonso-Magdalena, P, Garcia-Arevalo, M, Quesada, I, Nadal, A. Bisphenol-A treatment during pregnancy in mice: a new window of susceptibility for the development of diabetes in mothers later in life. Endocrinology. 2015; 156, 16591670.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
46. Miyawaki, J, Sakayama, K, Kato, H, Yamamoto, H, Masuno, H. Perinatal and postnatal exposure to bisphenol a increases adipose tissue mass and serum cholesterol level in mice. J Atheroscler Thromb. 2007; 14, 245252.Google Scholar
47. Anderson, OS, Peterson, KE, Sanchez, BN, et al. Perinatal bisphenol A exposure promotes hyperactivity, lean body composition, and hormonal responses across the murine life course. FASEB J. 2013; 27, 17841792.Google Scholar
48. Harley, KG, Aguilar Schall, R, Chevrier, J, et al. Prenatal and postnatal bisphenol A exposure and body mass index in childhood in the CHAMACOS cohort. Environ Health Perspect. 2013; 121, 514520.Google Scholar
49. Ryan, KK, Haller, AM, Sorrell, JE, et al.. Perinatal exposure to bisphenol-A and the development of metabolic syndrome in CD-1 mice. Endocrinology. 2010; 151, 26032612.Google Scholar
50. Wang, J, Sun, B, Hou, M, Pan, X, Li, X. The environmental obesogen bisphenol A promotes adipogenesis by increasing the amount of 11beta-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase type 1 in the adipose tissue of children. Int J Obes (Lond). 2013; 37, 9991005.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
51. Ohlstein, J, Strong, AL, McLachlan, JA, et al.. Bisphenol A enhances adipogenic differentiation of human adipose stromal/stem cells. J Mol Endocrinol. 2014; 53, 345353.Google Scholar
52. Boucher, JG, Husain, M, Rowan-Carroll, A, et al.. Identification of mechanisms of action of bisphenol A-induced human preadipocyte differentiation by transcriptional profiling. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2014; 22, 23332343.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
53. Boucher, JG, Boudreau, A, Atlas, E. Bisphenol A induces differentiation of human preadipocytes in the absence of glucocorticoid and is inhibited by an estrogen-receptor antagonist. Nutr Diabetes. 2014; 4, e102.Google Scholar
54. Bastos Sales, L, Kamstra, JH, Cenijn, PH, et al.. Effects of endocrine disrupting chemicals on in vitro global DNA methylation and adipocyte differentiation. Toxicol In Vitro. 2013; 27, 16341643.Google Scholar
55. Hugo, ER, Brandebourg, TD, Woo, JG, et al.. Bisphenol A at environmentally relevant doses inhibits adiponectin release from human adipose tissue explants and adipocytes. Environ Health Perspect. 2008; 116, 16421647.Google Scholar
56. Ronn, M, Lind, L, Orberg, J, et al. Bisphenol A is related to circulating levels of adiponectin, leptin and ghrelin, but not to fat mass or fat distribution in humans. Chemosphere. 2014; 112, 4248.Google Scholar
57. Perez-Leighton, CE, Boland, K, Teske, JA, Billington, C, Kotz, CM. Behavioral responses to orexin, orexin receptor gene expression, and spontaneous physical activity contribute to individual sensitivity to obesity. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2012; 303, E865E874.Google Scholar
58. Perez-Leighton, CE, Grace, M, Billington, CJ, Kotz, CM. Role of spontaneous physical activity in prediction of susceptibility to activity based anorexia in male and female rats. Physiol Behav. 2014; 135, 104111.Google Scholar
59. Perez-Leighton, CE, Boland, K, Billington, CJ, Kotz, CM. High and low activity rats: elevated intrinsic physical activity drives resistance to diet-induced obesity in non-bred rats. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2013; 21, 353360.Google Scholar
60. Bauer, UE, Briss, PA, Goodman, RA, Bowman, BA. Prevention of chronic disease in the 21st century: elimination of the leading preventable causes of premature death and disability in the USA. Lancet. 2014; 384, 4552.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
61. Garcia, LM, da Silva, KS, Del Duca, GF, da Costa, FF, Nahas, MV. Sedentary behaviors, leisure-time physical inactivity, and chronic diseases in Brazilian workers: a cross sectional study. J Phys Act Health. 2014; 11, 16221634.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
62. Goedecke, JH, Micklesfield, LK. The effect of exercise on obesity, body fat distribution and risk for type 2 diabetes. Med Sport Sci. 2014; 60, 8293.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
63. Ward, PW. Inactivity, not gluttony, causes obesity. BMJ. 2014; 348, g2717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
64. Booth, FW, Roberts, CK, Laye, MJ. Lack of exercise is a major cause of chronic diseases. Compr Physiol. 2012; 2, 11431211.Google Scholar
65. Knight, JA. Physical inactivity: associated diseases and disorders. Ann Clin Lab Sci. 2012; 42, 320337.Google Scholar
66. Schottenfeld, D, Beebe-Dimmer, JL, Buffler, PA, Omenn, GS. Current perspective on the global and United States cancer burden attributable to lifestyle and environmental risk factors. Annu Rev Public Health. 2013; 34, 97117.Google Scholar
67. Booth, FW, Laye, MJ, Lees, SJ, Rector, RS, Thyfault, JP. Reduced physical activity and risk of chronic disease: the biology behind the consequences. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2008; 102, 381390.Google Scholar
68. Bauman, AE, Reis, RS, Sallis, JF, et al. Correlates of physical activity: why are some people physically active and others not? Lancet. 2012; 380, 258271.Google Scholar
69. Kelly, SA, Nehrenberg, DL, Hua, K, et al. Parent-of-origin effects on voluntary exercise levels and body composition in mice. Physiol Genomics. 2010; 40, 111120.Google Scholar
70. Kelly, SA, Pomp, D. Genetic determinants of voluntary exercise. Trends Genet. 2013; 29, 348357.Google Scholar
71. Roberts, MD, Brown, JD, Company, JM, et al. Phenotypic and molecular differences between rats selectively bred to voluntarily run high vs. low nightly distances. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2013; 304, R1024R1035.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
72. Williams, SA, Jasarevic, E, Vandas, GM, et al. Effects of developmental bisphenol A exposure on reproductive-related behaviors in California mice (Peromyscus californicus): a monogamous animal model. PLoS One. 2013; 8, e55698.Google Scholar
73. Jasarevic, E, Sieli, PT, Twellman, EE, et al. Disruption of adult expression of sexually selected traits by developmental exposure to bisphenol A. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011; 108, 1171511720.Google Scholar
74. Jasarevic, E, Williams, SA, Vandas, GM, et al. Sex and dose-dependent effects of developmental exposure to bisphenol A on anxiety and spatial learning in deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus bairdii) offspring. Horm Behav. 2013; 63, 180189.Google Scholar
75. Krugner-Higby, L, Shadoan, M, Carlson, C, et al. Type 2 diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, and extremity lesions in California mice (Peromyscus californicus) fed commercial mouse diets. Comp Med. 2000; 50, 412418.Google ScholarPubMed
76. Sieli, PT, Jasarevic, E, Warzak, DA, et al. Comparison of serum bisphenol A concentrations in mice exposed to bisphenol A through the diet versus oral bolus exposure. Environ Health Perspect. 2011; 119, 12601265.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
77. vom Saal, FS, Richter, CA, Ruhlen, RR, et al.. The importance of appropriate controls, animal feed, and animal models in interpreting results from low-dose studies of bisphenol A. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2005; 73, 140145.Google Scholar
79. Hong, J, Stubbins, RE, Smith, RR, Harvey, AE, Núñez, NP. Differential susceptibility to obesity between male, female and ovariectomized female mice. Nutr J. 2009; 8, 1111.Google Scholar
80. Peromyscus genetic stock center, department of animal resources, University of South Carolina. http://stkctr.biol.sc.edu/wild-stock/p_calif.html.Google Scholar
81. Campi, KL, Jameson, CE, Trainor, BC. Sexual dimorphism in the brain of the monogamous California mouse (Peromyscus californicus). Brain Behav Evol. 2013; 81, 236249.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
82. Greenberg, GD, Laman-Maharg, A, Campi, KL, et al. Sex differences in stress-induced social withdrawal: role of brain derived neurotrophic factor in the bed nucleus of the Stria terminalis. Front Behav Neurosci. 2014; 7, 223.Google Scholar
83. Steppan, S, Adkins, R, Anderson, J. Phylogeny and divergence-date estimates of rapid radiations in muroid rodents based on multiple nuclear genes. Syst Biol. 2004; 53, 533553.Google Scholar
84. Jasarevic, E, Bailey, DH, Crossland, JP, et al. Evolution of monogamy, paternal investment, and female life history in Peromyscus . J Comp Psychol. 2013; 127, 91102.Google Scholar
85. Rosenfeld, CS, Johnson, SA, Ellersieck, MR, Roberts, RM. Interactions between parents and parents and pups in the monogamous California mouse (Peromyscus californicus). PloS One. 2013; 8, e75725.Google Scholar
86. Gubernick, DJ, Alberts, JR. The biparental care system of the California mouse, Peromyscus californicus. J Comp Psychol. 1987; 101, 169177.Google Scholar
87. Alonso-Magdalena, P, Ropero, AB, Soriano, S, et al. Bisphenol-A acts as a potent estrogen via non-classical estrogen triggered pathways. Mol Cell Endocrinol. 2012; 355, 201207.Google Scholar
88. De Coster, S, van Larebeke, N. Endocrine-disrupting chemicals: associated disorders and mechanisms of action. J Environ Pub Health. 2012; 2012, 713696.Google Scholar
89. Rubin, BS. Bisphenol A: an endocrine disruptor with widespread exposure and multiple effects. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2011; 127, 2734.Google Scholar
90. Galgani, JE, Moro, C, Ravussin, E. Metabolic flexibility and insulin resistance. Am J Physiol. 2008; 295, E1009E1017.Google Scholar
91. Thyfault, JP, Rector, RS, Noland, RC. Metabolic inflexibility in skeletal muscle: a prelude to the cardiometabolic syndrome? Journal of the CardioMetabolic Syndrome. 2006; 1, 184189.Google Scholar
92. Rosenfeld, CS, Trainor, BC. Environmental health factors and sexually dimorphic differences in behavioral disruptions. Curr Environ Health Rep. 2014; 1, 287301.Google Scholar
93. Rhodes, JS, Garland, T Jr, Gammie, SC. Patterns of brain activity associated with variation in voluntary wheel-running behavior. Behav Neurosci. 2003; 117, 12431256.Google Scholar
94. Waters, RP, Pringle, RB, Forster, GL, et al. Selection for increased voluntary wheel-running affects behavior and brain monoamines in mice. Brain Res. 2013; 1508, 922.Google Scholar
95. Hill, LE, Droste, SK, Nutt, DJ, Linthorst, AC, Reul, JM. Voluntary exercise alters GABA(A) receptor subunit and glutamic acid decarboxylase-67 gene expression in the rat forebrain. J Psychopharmacol. 2010; 24, 745756.Google Scholar
96. Meeusen, R. Exercise and the brain: insight in new therapeutic modalities. Ann Transplant. 2005; 10, 4951.Google ScholarPubMed
97. Tarr, BA, Kellaway, LA St, Clair Gibson, A, Russell, VA. Voluntary running distance is negatively correlated with striatal dopamine release in untrained rats. Behav Brain Res. 2004; 154, 493499.Google Scholar
98. Kolb, EM, Rezende, EL, Holness, L, et al. Mice selectively bred for high voluntary wheel running have larger midbrains: support for the mosaic model of brain evolution. J Exp Biol. 2013; 216(Pt 3), 515523.Google Scholar
99. Teske, JA, Perez-Leighton, CE, Billington, CJ, Kotz, CM. Role of the locus coeruleus in enhanced orexin A-induced spontaneous physical activity in obesity-resistant rats. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2013; 305, R1337R1345.Google Scholar
100. Chen, F, Zhou, L, Bai, Y, Zhou, R, Chen, L. Sex differences in the adult HPA axis and affective behaviors are altered by perinatal exposure to a low dose of bisphenol A. Brain Res. 2014; 1571, 1224.Google Scholar
101. Elsworth, JD, Jentsch, JD, Vandevoort, CA, et al. Prenatal exposure to bisphenol A impacts midbrain dopamine neurons and hippocampal spine synapses in non-human primates. Neurotoxicology. 2013; 35, 113120.Google Scholar
102. Kunz, N, Camm, EJ, Somm, E, et al. Developmental and metabolic brain alterations in rats exposed to bisphenol A during gestation and lactation. Int J Dev Neurosci. 2011; 29, 3743.Google Scholar
103. Leranth, C, Hajszan, T, Szigeti-Buck, K, Bober, J, MacLusky, NJ. Bisphenol A prevents the synaptogenic response to estradiol in hippocampus and prefrontal cortex of ovariectomized nonhuman primates. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2008; 105, 1418714191.Google Scholar
104. Tiwari, SK, Agarwal, S, Chauhan, LK, Mishra, VN, Chaturvedi, RK. Bisphenol-A impairs myelination potential during development in the hippocampus of the rat brain. Mol Neurobiol. 2014; 51, 13951416.Google Scholar
105. Xu, XB, He, Y, Song, C, et al. Bisphenol a regulates the estrogen receptor alpha signaling in developing hippocampus of male rats through estrogen receptor. Hippocampus. 2014; 24, 15701580.Google Scholar
106. Zhang, Q, Xu, X, Li, T, et al.. Exposure to bisphenol-A affects fear memory and histone acetylation of the hippocampus in adult mice. Horm Behav. 2014; 65, 106113.Google Scholar
107. Cao, J, Joyner, L, Mickens, JA, Leyrer, SM, Patisaul, HB. Sex-specific Esr2 mRNA expression in the rat hypothalamus and amygdala is altered by neonatal bisphenol A exposure. Reproduction. 2014; 147, 537554.Google Scholar
108. Cao, J, Rebuli, ME, Rogers, J, et al. Prenatal bisphenol A exposure alters sex-specific estrogen receptor expression in the neonatal rat hypothalamus and amygdala. Toxicol Sci. 2013; 133, 157173.Google Scholar
109. Kundakovic, M, Gudsnuk, K, Franks, B, et al. Sex-specific epigenetic disruption and behavioral changes following low-dose in utero bisphenol A exposure. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2013; 110, 99569961.Google Scholar
110. McCaffrey, KA, Jones, B, Mabrey, N, et al.. Sex specific impact of perinatal bisphenol A (BPA) exposure over a range of orally administered doses on rat hypothalamic sexual differentiation. Neurotoxicology. 2013; 36, 5562.Google Scholar
111. Panagiotidou, E, Zerva, S, Mitsiou, DJ, Alexis, MN, Kitraki, E. Perinatal exposure to low-dose bisphenol A affects the neuroendocrine stress response in rats. J Endocrinol. 2014; 220, 207218.Google Scholar
112. Tiwari, SK, Agarwal, S, Chauhan, LK, Mishra, VN, Chaturvedi, RK. Bisphenol-A impairs myelination potential during development in the hippocampus of the rat brain. Mol Neurobiol. 2014; 51, 13951416.Google Scholar
113. Viberg, H, Lee, I. A single exposure to bisphenol A alters the levels of important neuroproteins in adult male and female mice. Neurotoxicology. 2012; 33, 13901395.Google Scholar
114. Xu, XB, He, Y, Song, C, et al. Bisphenol A regulates the estrogen receptor alpha signaling in developing hippocampus of male rats through estrogen receptor. Hippocampus. 2014; 24, 15701580.Google Scholar
115. Leranth, C, Szigeti-Buck, K, Maclusky, NJ, Hajszan, T. Bisphenol A prevents the synaptogenic response to testosterone in the brain of adult male rats. Endocrinology. 2008; 149, 988994.Google Scholar
116. Narita, M, Miyagawa, K, Mizuo, K, Yoshida, T, Suzuki, T. Changes in central dopaminergic systems and morphine reward by prenatal and neonatal exposure to bisphenol-A in mice: evidence for the importance of exposure period. Addict Biol. 2007; 12, 167172.Google Scholar
117. Nakamura, K, Itoh, K, Yoshimoto, K, Sugimoto, T, Fushiki, S. Prenatal and lactational exposure to low-doses of bisphenol A alters brain monoamine concentration in adult mice. Neurosci Lett. 2010; 484, 6670.Google Scholar
118. Tian, YH, Baek, JH, Lee, SY, Jang, CG. Prenatal and postnatal exposure to bisphenol a induces anxiolytic behaviors and cognitive deficits in mice. Synapse. 2010; 64, 432439.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
119. Yaoi, T, Itoh, K, Nakamura, K, et al. Genome-wide analysis of epigenomic alterations in fetal mouse forebrain after exposure to low doses of bisphenol A. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2008; 376, 563567.Google Scholar
120. Werme, M, Messer, C, Olson, L, et al. Delta FosB regulates wheel running. J Neurosci. 2002; 22, 81338138.Google Scholar
121. Alyea, RA, Watson, CS. Differential regulation of dopamine transporter function and location by low concentrations of environmental estrogens and 17beta-estradiol. Environ Health Perspect. 2009; 117, 778783.Google Scholar
122. Jones, DC, Miller, GW. The effects of environmental neurotoxicants on the dopaminergic system: a possible role in drug addiction. Biochem Pharmacol. 2008; 76, 569581.Google Scholar
123. Matsuda, S, Saika, S, Amano, K, Shimizu, E, Sajiki, J. Changes in brain monoamine levels in neonatal rats exposed to bisphenol A at low doses. Chemosphere. 2010; 78, 894906.Google Scholar
124. Nakamura, K, Itoh, K, Yoshimoto, K, Sugimoto, T, Fushiki, S. Prenatal and lactational exposure to low-doses of bisphenol A alters brain monoamine concentration in adult mice. Neurosci Lett. 2010; 484, 6670.Google Scholar
125. Tanida, T, Warita, K, Ishihara, K, et al. Fetal and neonatal exposure to three typical environmental chemicals with different mechanisms of action: mixed exposure to phenol, phthalate, and dioxin cancels the effects of sole exposure on mouse midbrain dopaminergic nuclei. Toxicol Lett. 2009; 189, 4047.Google Scholar
126. Zhou, R, Zhang, Z, Zhu, Y, Chen, L, Sokabe, M. Deficits in development of synaptic plasticity in rat dorsal striatum following prenatal and neonatal exposure to low-dose bisphenol A. Neuroscience. 2009; 159, 161171.Google Scholar
127. Garland, T Jr, Schutz, H, Chappell, MA, et al. The biological control of voluntary exercise, spontaneous physical activity and daily energy expenditure in relation to obesity: human and rodent perspectives. J Exp Biol. 2011; 214(Pt 2), 206229.Google Scholar
128. Chen, ZY, Jing, D, Bath, KG, et al. Genetic variant BDNF (Val66Met) polymorphism alters anxiety-related behavior. Science. 2006; 314, 140143.Google Scholar
129. Berchtold, NC, Kesslak, JP, Pike, CJ, Adlard, PA, Cotman, CW. Estrogen and exercise interact to regulate brain-derived neurotrophic factor mRNA and protein expression in the hippocampus. Eur J Neurosci. 2001; 14, 19922002.Google Scholar
130. Teske, JA, Billington, CJ, Kotz, CM. Mechanisms underlying obesity resistance associated with high spontaneous physical activity. Neuroscience. 2014; 256, 91100.Google Scholar
131. Kotz, C, Nixon, J, Butterick, T, et al.. Brain orexin promotes obesity resistance. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2012; 1264, 7286.Google Scholar
132. Perez-Leighton, CE, Billington, CJ, Kotz, CM. Orexin modulation of adipose tissue. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2014; 1842, 440445.Google Scholar
133. Nojima, K, Takata, T, Masuno, H. Prolonged exposure to a low-dose of bisphenol A increases spontaneous motor activity in adult male rats. J Physiol Sci. 2013; 63, 311315.Google Scholar
134. Ishido, M, Yonemoto, J, Morita, M. Mesencephalic neurodegeneration in the orally administered bisphenol A-caused hyperactive rats. Toxicol Lett. 2007; 173, 6672.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
135. Farabollini, F, Porrini, S, Dessi-Fulgheri, F. Perinatal exposure to the estrogenic pollutant bisphenol A affects behavior in male and female rats. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1999; 64, 687694.Google Scholar
136. Baker, MS, Li, G, Kohorst, JJ, Waterland, RA. Fetal growth restriction promotes physical inactivity and obesity in female mice. Int J Obes (Lond). 2013; 39, 98104.Google Scholar
137. Bodin, J, Bolling, AK, Samuelsen, M, et al. Long-term bisphenol A exposure accelerates insulitis development in diabetes-prone NOD mice. Immunopharmacol Immunotoxicol. 2013; 35, 349358.Google Scholar
138. Moon, MK, Jeong, IK, Jung Oh, T, et al. Long-term oral exposure to bisphenol A induces glucose intolerance and insulin resistance. J Endocrinol. 2015; 226, 3542.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Fig. 1 Total amount eaten and eating episodes. (a) Total amount eaten for females. (b) Total amount eaten for males. (c) Feeding episodes for females. (d) Feeding episodes for males. *P=0.04. BPA, bisphenol A; EE, ethinyl estradiol.

Figure 1

Fig. 2 Body weight and energy expenditure. (a) Body weight for females and males. (b) Total energy expenditure for females. (c) Total energy expenditure for males. *P=0.02. BPA, bisphenol A; EE, ethinyl estradiol.

Figure 2

Fig. 3 Respiratory quotient (RQ). (a) Average RQ for females. (b) Average RQ for males. (c) Resting RQ for 30 min of lowest activity (R_RQ_30) for females. (d) R_RQ_30 for males. *P⩽0.05, **P=0.01. BPA, bisphenol A; EE, ethinyl estradiol.

Figure 3

Fig. 4 XYZ beam breaks and total distance traveled. (a) XYZ beam breaks for females. (b) XYZ beam breaks for males. (c) Total distance traveled for females. (d) Total distance traveled for males. *P⩽0.05, **P=0.0003. BPA, bisphenol A; EE, ethinyl estradiol.

Figure 4

Fig. 5 Average walking speed. (a) Walking speed for females. (b) Walking speed for males. *P=0.004. BPA, bisphenol A; EE, ethinyl estradiol.

Figure 5

Fig. 6 Percentage of time spent walking and remaining still. (a) Percentage of time spent walking for females. (b) Percentage of time spent walking for males. (c) Percentage of time spent remaining still for females. (d) Percentage of time spent remaining still for males. *P=0.009, **P=0.03. BPA, bisphenol A; EE, ethinyl estradiol.

Figure 6

Fig. 7 Percentage of time and total hours spent sleeping. (a) Percentage of time spent sleeping for females. (b) Percentage of time spent sleeping for males. (c) Total hours spent asleep for females. (d) Total hours spent asleep for males. *P=0.04, **P=0.004. BPA, bisphenol A; EE, ethinyl estradiol.

Supplementary material: Image

Johnson supplementary material

Figure S1

Download Johnson supplementary material(Image)
Image 15.6 MB
Supplementary material: Image

Johnson supplementary material

Figure S2

Download Johnson supplementary material(Image)
Image 2.5 MB
Supplementary material: Image

Johnson supplementary material

Figure S3

Download Johnson supplementary material(Image)
Image 2.1 MB
Supplementary material: Image

Johnson supplementary material

Figure S4

Download Johnson supplementary material(Image)
Image 1 MB
Supplementary material: Image

Johnson supplementary material

Figure S5

Download Johnson supplementary material(Image)
Image 1.5 MB
Supplementary material: Image

Johnson supplementary material

Figure S6

Download Johnson supplementary material(Image)
Image 1.5 MB
Supplementary material: Image

Johnson supplementary material

Figure S7

Download Johnson supplementary material(Image)
Image 2.6 MB
Supplementary material: File

Johnson supplementary material

Table S1

Download Johnson supplementary material(File)
File 14.8 KB
Supplementary material: File

Johnson supplementary material

Table S2

Download Johnson supplementary material(File)
File 16.2 KB