Skip to main content
Download PDF

Endocrine Disrupting Activities of the Flavonoid Nutraceuticals Luteolin and Quercetin

Hormones and Cancer volume 4, pages 293–300 (2013)Cite this article

Abstract

Dietary plant flavonoids have been proposed to contribute to cancer prevention, neuroprotection, and cardiovascular health through their anti-oxidant, anti-inflammatory, pro-apoptotic, and antiproliferative activities. As a consequence, flavonoid supplements are aggressively marketed by the nutraceutical industry for many purposes, including pediatric applications, despite inadequate understanding of their value and drawbacks. We show that two flavonoids, luteolin and quercetin, are promiscuous endocrine disruptors. These flavonoids display progesterone antagonist activity beneficial in a breast cancer model but deleterious in an endometrial cancer model. Concurrently, luteolin possesses potent estrogen agonist activity while quercetin is considerably less effective. These results highlight the promise and peril of flavonoid nutraceuticals and suggest caution in supplementation beyond levels attained in a healthy, plant-rich diet.

Introduction

Diets rich in fruits and vegetables are associated with lower incidence of disease including cancer and cardiovascular disease. Flavonoids are major components of plant-rich diets and active ingredients of Chinese herbal medicines. Myriad beneficial activities have been ascribed to flavonoids. These activities may contribute to a reduced risk of cancer, the benefits of a Mediterranean diet, and may explain the “French paradox”, the low incidence of cardiovascular mortality despite ingestion of a high fat diet associated with consumption of red wine [1–4]. As natural products, flavonoids are marketed as supplements for relief of menopausal symptoms, chronic fatigue syndrome, autism, inflammatory syndromes, cancer prevention, and more. Consumption of flavonoids via supplements may far exceed the amount ingested via a normal diet.

The flavone luteolin and related flavonoids such as quercetin have anti-oxidant, anti-inflammatory, and anti-proliferative activities and are found widely in fruits and vegetables [3–5] (http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/Data/Other/AICR03_VegFlav.pdf). The hydrophobic ring structure of these flavonoids and the presence of hydroxyls as potential hydrogen bond donors prompted us to assess their activity on steroid signaling. The studies reported here demonstrate that luteolin and quercetin display multifunctional endocrine-disrupting activities at levels achievable by oral consumption. The implication of these results toward the use of flavonoids as supplements is discussed.

Materials and Methods

Reagents

Flavonoids were obtained from R&D Systems and suspended in DMSO at 20 mM. The antibodies used are: rabbit anti-cytokeratin 5, Epitomics, 2290–1, used at 1:250; fluorescent goat anti-rabbit, InVitrogen, A-11037, used at 1:250; and mouse anti-progesterone receptor antibody [6], Dako, PgR 1294 (1:1,000), fluorescent goat anti-mouse, LiCor 926–32210 (1:5,000).

Cell Lines

All T47D cells lines used express progesterone and estrogen receptors. T47D (A1-2) cells (Fig 1b) also express glucocorticoid receptors [7]. Experiments shown in Figs. 1c, d, 2, and 5 employed CK5Pro-Fluc-T47D cells that contain a stably integrated firefly luciferase reporter gene driven by the cytokeratin 5 promoter [8]. T47DKBluc cells (Fig. 3) contain a synthetic estrogen-responsive promoter-luciferase reporter [9]. The Ishikawa cell line [10] used in experiments shown in Fig. 4 expresses both estrogen and progesterone receptors.

Fig. 1
figure 1

a Structures of the flavone, luteolin, and the flavonol, quercetin. b The effect of the flavonoids luteolin and quercetin on steroid signaling. T47D (A1-2) cells were treated with 1 nM R5020 (filled symbols) or 1 nM dexamethasone (open symbols) and the indicated concentration of luteolin (circles) or quercetin (squares) or vehicle for 20 h. Induction of endogenous alkaline phosphatase in the absence of flavonoid is defined as 100 % (see “Materials and Methods”). c Flavonoid inhibition of progestin-mediated induction of a classical progestin target gene, serum- and glucocorticoid-regulated kinase (SGK). CK5Pro-Fluc-T47D cells were treated with 1 nM R5020 or vehicle with the indicated concentration of luteolin or quercetin (qu). Induction of SGK RNA was assessed by qRT-PCR. The number on each bar is the induction relative to cells treated with hormone alone which is set at 100. d Luteolin inhibition of the progestin-mediated induction of the cytokeratin 5 promoter. Cytokeratin 5-luciferase (triangles) or endogenous alkaline phosphatase (circles) induction by 1 nM R5020 in CK5Pro-Fluc-T47D cells with the indicated concentration of luteolin

Full size image
Fig. 2
figure 2

a Dose-dependent inhibition of progestin induced cytokeratin 5 expression by luteolin in CK5Pro-Fluc-T47D cells treated with 1 nM R5020 or vehicle and the indicated concentration of luteolin for 24 h before fixation. Cytokeratin 5-expressing cells are stained with Texas Red and nuclei are counter stained with DAPI. b Quantitation of dose-dependent inhibition by luteolin of R5020-induced cytokeratin 5 expression

Full size image

Alkaline Phosphatase and Luciferase Gene Activity

T47D cell lines were plated into opaque 96 well dishes (Nunc 136101) at 50,000 cells per well for 24 h before treatment with 1 nM steroid hormones, R5020, dexamethasone, or 17β-estradiol for 20 h. For T47D-KBluc cells cultures were transferred to phenol red-free, estrogen-depleted medium before plating. For assay, cells were washed twice then harvested in 40 μl lysis buffer (1 % Triton X-100, 10 % glycerol, 20 mM K2HPO4 pH 7.8). Half of the lysate was transferred to another 96-well plate (Greiner 655075) for assay of alkaline phosphatase. Assay reagent, 60 μl of 2× buffer (0.2 M diethanolamine pH 9.5, 2 mM MgCl2), 26 μl H2O, 12 μl Emerald II, and 2 μl CSPD (Life Technologies) were added per well. After 30 min, luminescence was assessed using a BioTek plate reader and Gen5 Software. For luciferase assay, 50 μl luciferin reconstituted in buffer (Promega) is injected into each well of the original plate and light signal captured for 10 s following a 2-s delay. Four to six independent wells were assessed for each condition. To quantify antagonism, induction percentage was calculated by dividing net hormone-induced activity in the flavonoid-treated conditions by the net hormone-induced activity without flavonoid multiplied by 100. Net activity is the activity in the presence of hormone minus the activity in vehicle-treated controls. Neither quercetin nor luteolin induced alkaline phosphatase nor cytokeratin 5-luciferase activity on their own at the concentrations used down to a sensitivity of less than 0.5 % that of hormone at concentrations up to 10 μM. For estrogen agonist activity, induction percentage was calculated by dividing net activity in flavonoid-treated cells by net activity in cells treated with 1 nM 17β-estradiol multiplied by 100. Standard deviations are shown where larger than the symbol. Induction of alkaline phosphatase was 40–60-fold over untreated cells for R5020 and 10-fold for dexamethasone. Induction of cytokeratin 5-luciferase was over 200-fold.

Immunofluorescence

Two hundred thousand CK5Pro-Fluc-T47D cells were plated in six-well dishes containing sterile coverslips for 48 h. Cells were treated with hormone and/or luteolin for 24 h before fixing. For quantitation, a total of 1,000–3,000 cells in two to six fields per condition were scored for detectable cytokeratin 5 expression .

Western Blot

300,000 CK5Pro-Fluc-T47D cells were plated in six-well dishes for 48 h then treated with 1 nM R5020 and/or luteolin (8 μM) for 24 h before harvest. Western blots were imaged on a LiCor Odyssey Infrared imager.

Statistical Analysis

Hormone induction is defined as the luciferase or alkaline phosphatase activity in the presence of hormone minus the activity in the absence of hormone. Percent induction is hormone induction in the presence of flavonoid divided by the hormone induction of vehicle-treated controls times 100. The calculation of standard deviation of percent hormone induction values accounts for the error propagation arising from the multiple independent variables that comprise percent induction.

RNA Isolation and qRT-PCR Analysis

Total RNA was isolated using the RNeasy Plus kit (Qiagen, Valencia, CA) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. One microgram of total RNA was reverse transcribed in a total volume of 20 μL using MMLV reverse transcriptase (Promega, Madison, WI). Real-time PCR was performed on 1/10 of the synthesized cDNA using the oligonucleotide primers SGK-F (5′-TGCAGAAGGACAGGACAAAG-3′) and SGK-R (5′-GACAGGCTCTTCGGTAAACTC-3′) for SGK and Bact1219U (5′-GTTGCGTTACACCCTTTCTTGA-3′) and Bact1552L (5′-AATGCTATCACCTCCCCTGTG-3′) for β-actin and SYBR green PCR master mix (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA). Amplification signals were detected with an ABI 7500 Real-Time PCR system (Perkin Elmer, Waltham, MA). Fold change in expression was calculated using the comparative Ct method [11]. Values were calculated according to the following equation: Fold change = 2−ΔΔCt where ΔΔCt = ΔCt1 − ΔCt2. ΔCt1 = (Ct, SGK, treated − Ct, β-actin, treated) and ΔCt2 = (ΔCt,SGK, control − ΔCt, β-actin, control).

Flow Cytometry

After 36 h of serum and steroid starvation, Ishikawa cells were treated with flavonoids and/or steroid hormones for 24 h. Cells were then harvested, washed with cold PBS, and incubated with Krishan stain for 12–16 h [12]. Flow cytometry was performed using a Beckman Coulter FC500 at the University of Colorado Cancer Center Flow Cytometry Shared Resource. The percentage of cells in each cell cycle phase was determined using ModFit LT (Verity Software House) software.

Modeling

Docking of luteolin and other related ligands to PR was performed using Autodock Vina [13]. The protein model for docking was based on the structure of progesterone receptor bound to the antagonist asoprisnil (PDB IDs 2OVM and 2OVH) [14]. Residues within 4 Å of asoprisnil were compared to 11 other PDB entries for PR solved in the agonist induced state, and those residues that showed significant deviation in their conformations between structures were allowed to adapt their conformation during docking calculations. The structure of the protein and ligands were prepared for docking calculations using AutodockTools [15]. Docking calculations were repeated four times starting with different random conformations of the luteolin ligand. In each calculation, the conformation with the lowest predicted binding energy was essentially identical.

Results

We have previously employed the T47D (A1-2) cell line to screen for novel effectors of progestin and glucocorticoid signaling [16]. This line has been engineered to express glucocorticoid receptors at levels comparable to the levels of endogenous progesterone receptors [7]. Activity of receptors is easily screened by assessing hormone induction of the endogenous tissue non-specific alkaline phosphatase whose enzyme activity can be readily assessed by a luminetric assay. This gene is strongly induced by progestins (40–60-fold) and glucocorticoids (10-fold). Cells were treated with the flavones luteolin or quercetin (Fig. 1a). Luteolin strongly inhibited induction of endogenous alkaline phosphatase by the strong, synthetic progestin, R5020 (EC50 1–2 μM). Luteolin also inhibited glucocorticoid signaling, albeit less potently. Quercetin, with its additional hydroxyl, displayed less potent anti-progestin activity than luteolin and failed to inhibit glucocorticoid-dependent alkaline phosphatase expression (Fig. 1b). Thus, antagonism of steroid signaling is receptor and structure specific. No agonist activity was detected at doses up to 10 μM with a sensitivity down to 0.5 % that of 1 nM R5020.

To ensure that luteolin and quercetin were acting at the level of RNA, we assessed R5020-mediated induction of a classical progesterone target, the gene for the serum- and glucocorticoid-regulated kinase (SGK). R5020 induced SGK over 16-fold and luteolin inhibited this induction in a dose-dependent fashion. Quercetin inhibited SGK expression also but less potently than luteolin (Fig. 1c). These data exhibit a very similar pattern to that shown for the flavonoid-mediated inhibition of endogenous alkaline phosphatase enzyme activity.

Results of the Women’s Health Initiative and the Million Women studies indicate that in the context of menopausal women receiving long-term hormone replacement therapy, progestins increase breast cancer incidence and mortality [17, 18]. Progestins have been shown to induce a population of drug-resistant, basal-like, tumor-initiating cells [8, 19]. Thus, the progestin antagonist activity of luteolin may be beneficial in this context. These tumor-initiating cells are characterized by hormone-induced expression of cytokeratin 5. We utilized T47D cells engineered to contain a cytokeratin 5 promoter driving a luciferase reporter [8] to determine the effect of luteolin on this population. As shown in Fig. 1d, luteolin inhibits progestin-dependent induction of luciferase with a dose response similar to that of the inhibition of endogenous alkaline phosphatase.

Direct immunofluorescence analysis of cytokeratin 5 expression showed that R5020 increased the number of cytokeratin 5-positive cells from 0.2 to 8 % (Fig. 2). This increase was inhibited by luteolin in a dose-dependent fashion. Co-treatment with 8 μM luteolin almost entirely abrogated the R5020-induced increase in the fraction of cytokeratin 5-positive cells but inhibition was substantial at even lower doses (Fig. 2). Notably, these functional levels of luteolin in the low micromolar range are below that needed for many of its reported effects in vitro. Most of these reported activities, which are used to justify usage as supplements, are significant only at levels of 10 μM or higher. Levels in the range of several micromolar are achievable by dietary supplementation [20–22] but effects imposed only at 10 μM or above may not be physiologically meaningful in vivo.

Together these data suggest a potential role for luteolin to suppress progestin-mediated induction of tumor cells with enhanced progenitor properties; however, this beneficial activity is countered by the fact that luteolin also acts as an estrogen agonist in a similar dose range (Fig. 3). Thus, luteolin acts as a multi-functional endocrine disruptor, imposing estrogenic activity while concurrently antagonizing progesterone and glucocorticoid signaling.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Estrogen agonist activity of luteolin and quercetin. T47D KBluc cells were treated with luteolin (circles), quercetin (squares), or vehicle for 20 h. Induction of luciferase activity by 1 nM 17β-estradiol is defined as 100 %

Full size image

Estrogens promote growth in both the uterine and breast epithelium. Treatment of estrogen receptor-positive Ishikawa endometrial cancer cells with 17β-estradiol drives them into cell cycle as evidenced by an increase in the fraction of cells in S + G2M (Fig. 4). Unlike breast, where progestins may promote cancer, progesterone provides a critical brake on endometrial growth driven by estrogens [23–25]. In normal tissue, progestins inhibit estrogen-driven growth of the uterine epithelium through an interplay with stromal components [26]. However, in Ishikawa cells, progestins can inhibit estrogen-stimulated growth directly. The 17β-estradiol-mediated increase in cells in S + G2M is blocked by concurrent treatment with R5020 (Fig. 4). When 17β-estradiol, R5020, and luteolin are added concurrently, the growth inhibitory effect of R5020 is abrogated by the progestin-antagonist activity of luteolin. In Ishikawa cells, as in the breast model, luteolin alone has estrogen agonist activity. This activity drives an increase of Ishikawa cells into S + G2M as effectively as 17β-estradiol (Fig. 4). R5020 is again unable to inhibit this increase due to the coincident progestin–antagonist activity of luteolin. Thus, luteolin has two deleterious activities in this endometrial cancer model. It stimulates growth via estrogen agonist activity and abrogates the protective effect of progestins via progestin antagonist activity. This dual activity suggests supplementation with luteolin be contraindicated for women at risk for endometrial cancer.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Luteolin abolishes the progestin-mediated block of estrogen-stimulated cell growth in Ishikawa endometrial cancer cells. Cells were treated for 24 h with the indicated combinations of 1 nM 17β estradiol (E); 1 nM R5020, (R); 8 μM luteolin (L); or vehicle. *p ≤ 0.001 compared to vehicle-treated control (con)

Full size image

A potential mechanism by which luteolin may antagonize progesterone receptor signaling is simply to reduce progesterone receptor expression. At high levels (10–100 μM), the flavonoid quercetin has been reported to reduce expression of the androgen receptor in LNCaP prostate cancer cells [27]. In contrast, we found that 8 μM luteolin, a dose that almost completely abrogates the activity of 1 nM R5020, has no effect on levels of progesterone receptor in the absence of R5020 and inhibits the modest agonist-mediated downregulation observed (Fig. 5). The antagonism of hormone-dependent gene induction by luteolin is diminished by increasing doses of agonists, R5020 or progesterone, consistent with luteolin acting via a competitive binding mechanism. For this reason and because plant-derived isoflavones like genistein are known to bind to estrogen receptors, we have performed molecular modeling of luteolin interaction with the ligand binding domain of the progesterone receptor.

Fig. 5
figure 5

Luteolin does not inhibit progesterone receptor expression itself and blocks agonist-mediated downregulation. Western blot of progesterone receptor levels at 24 h following treatment of CK5Pro-Fluc-T47D cells with vehicle or hormone and/or luteolin. PR, progesterone receptor; R, 1 nM R5020, L; 8 μM luteolin

Full size image

Modeling luteolin binding using the crystal structure of an antagonist-progesterone receptor complex [14] yields a series of high affinity poses, the most avid of which has a predicted K D of 80–90 nM in multiple calculations. Luteolin binding to the antagonist conformation of the receptor is stabilized by an interaction with Glu723 (Fig. 6a). This interaction is unavailable in the agonist-bound conformation of receptor because Glu723 is positioned to stabilize helix 12 by capping the helix dipole [28]. The agonist conformation of helix 12 is further disfavored in this predicted conformation of luteolin due to steric interference with methionine 909 of helix 12 (Fig. 6b). Thus, the modeling predicts that luteolin precludes helix 12 from assuming a position that permits coactivator binding much like steroidal antagonists with bulky substitutions at the 11 position of the C ring [14, 29].

Fig. 6
figure 6

Predicted binding mode of luteolin to progesterone receptor. In panel a, the predicted lowest energy binding mode of luteolin (yellow) is shown in comparison to the crystal structure of asoprisnil (blue) [14]. Residues in cyan were allowed to adapt their conformation during docking. Potential hydrogen bond interactions with Glu273 that caps helix12 in the activated state and with Asn719 are shown as dashed red lines. Panel b illustrates the clash between luteolin (yellow) and methionine 909 when helix 12 is in an agonist conformation. Asoprisnil (blue) is shown for comparison

Full size image

Discussion

Isoflavones, most notably genistein, present in certain forage crops have long been recognized to interfere with the reproductive capacity of livestock [30, 31] and to display estrogenic activity [32–35]. This has led to many studies assessing the estrogenicity of plant-derived polyphenolic compounds, luteolin and quercetin among them [36–40]. Screening for other hormonal activities has received less attention. Luteolin exhibits weak androgen antagonist activity [41] as does apigenin, a flavone closely related to luteolin [41, 42]. Apigenin binds to progesterone receptors though, curiously, binding by luteolin was not detected [43]. Apigenin has been reported to possess progestational activity [44, 45] or both progestin agonist and antagonist activity [42]. Apigenin inhibits the growth of progestin-dependent tumor models in vivo consistent with progesterone antagonist activity [46, 47]. These tumor studies attest to the biological activity of orally administered flavones in vivo.

The present studies highlight the potential of flavonoids, especially luteolin, to act as multi-functional endocrine disruptors. Luteolin displays potent progesterone antagonist and estrogen agonist activities and weaker glucocorticoid antagonist activity. Quercetin exhibited weaker estrogen agonist activity and progestin antagonist activity than luteolin but little anti-glucocorticoid activity. Notably, these activities of quercetin and particularly luteolin are significant at low micromolar levels, levels achievable by supplementation in vivo [20–22]. Many of the myriad activities attributed to flavones that are significant at levels of 10 μM and above may have little physiologic relevance in vivo. These results underscore the need for further studies in vivo to assess the complexities of flavonoid pharmacokinetics and the potential of flavonoids and their metabolites to impose or disrupt hormonal activities.

Nutraceuticals are the basis of a multi-billion dollar business but, as natural compounds universally present in plant matter and consumed in food, they are subject to limited oversight. Despite a wealth of data supporting the benefits of a plant-rich diet and many studies showing beneficial effects in pre-clinical systems, evidence supporting the value of supplementation with purified flavonoids is lacking. Here our studies reveal that luteolin, a flavone marketed for a variety of therapeutic applications, including pediatric applications, has potent multi-functional endocrine-disrupting activity. Luteolin displays estrogen agonist activity that can drive cell growth in estrogen-dependent tissues. Additionally, luteolin can simultaneously act as a progesterone antagonist at physiologically attainable levels. This progestin antagonist activity is beneficial in a breast cancer model, inhibiting the progestin-stimulated increase in a population of cells with stem-like or tumor-initiating properties, but deleterious in an endometrial cancer model, blocking the progestin-mediated brake on estrogen-driven growth. These studies highlight the promise and peril of supplementation with nutraceuticals and suggest caution in supplementing well beyond the intake of a normal, healthy diet.

References

  1. Ramos S (2002) Cancer chemoprevention and chemotherapy: dietary polyphenols and signalling pathways. Mol Nutr Food Res 52:507–526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Zern Tosca L, Fernandez ML (2005) Cardioprotective effect of dietary polyphenols. J Nutr 135:2291–2294

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Nijveldt RJ, van Nood E, van Hoorn DEC, Boelens PG, van Norren K, van Leeuwen PAM (2001) Flavonoids: a review of probable mechanisms of action and potential applications. Am J Clin Nutr 74:418–425

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Seelinger G, Merfort I, Wölfle U, Schempp CM (2008) Anti-carcinogenic effects of the flavonoid luteolin. Molecules 13:2628–2651

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. López-Lázaro M (2009) Distribution and biological activities of the flavonoid luteolin. Mini Rev Med Chem 9:31–59

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Press M, Groshen S, Kaminsky D, Hagerty M, Sherman L, Christensen K, Edwards DP (2002) Comparison of different antibodies for detection of progesterone receptor in breast cancer. Steroids 67:799–813

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Nordeen SK, Blanka K, Lawler-Heavner J, Barber DA, Edwards DP (1989) A quantitative comparison of dual control of a hormone response element by progestins and glucocorticoids in the same cell line. Mol Endocrinol 3:1270–1278

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Axlund SD, Yoo BH, Rosen RB, Schaack J, Kabos P, Barbera DV, Sartorius CA (2013) Progesterone-inducible cytokeratin 5-positive cells in luminal breast cancer exhibit progenitor properties. Horm Cancer 4:36–49

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Wilson VS, Kathy Bobseine L, Gray Jr. E (2004) Development and characterization of a cell line that stably expresses an estrogen-responsive luciferase reporter for the detection of estrogen receptor agonist and antagonists. Toxicol Sci 81:69–77

    Google Scholar 

  10. Ishiwata I, Ishiwata C, Soma M, Arai J, Ishikawa H (1984) Establishment of human endometrial adenocarcinoma cell line containing estradiol-17 beta and progesterone receptors. Gynecol Oncol 17:281–290

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Livak KJ, Schmittgen TD (2001) Analysis of relative gene expression data using real-time quantitative PCR and the 2(−Delta Delta C(T)) method. Methods 25:402–408

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Krishan A (1975) Rapid flow cytofluorometric analysis of mammalian cell cycle by propidium iodide staining. J Cell Biol 66:188–193

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Trott O, Olson AJ (2010) AutoDock Vina: improving the speed and accuracy of docking with a new scoring function, efficient optimization, and multithreading. J Comput Chem 31:455–461

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Madauss KP, Grygielko ET, Deng S-J, Sulpizio AC, Stanley TB, Wu C, Short SA, Thompson SK, Stewart EL, Laping NJ, Williams SP, Bray JD (2007) A structural and in vitro characterization of asoprisnil: a selective progesterone receptor modulator. Mol Endocrinol 21:1066–1081

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Morris GM, Huey R, Lindstrom W, Sanner MF, Belew RK, Goodsell DS, Olson AJ (2009) AutoDock4 and AutoDockTools4: automated docking with selective receptor flexibility. J Comput Chem 30:2785–2791

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Aninye IO, Berg KC, Mollo AR, Nordeen SK, Wilson EM, Shapiro DJ (2012) 8-Alkylthio-6-thio-substituted theophylline analogues as selective progesterone receptor antagonists. Steroids 77:659–601

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Chlebowski RT, Anderson GL, Gass M, Lane DS, Aragaki AK, Kuller LH, Manson JE, Stefanick ML, Ockene J, Sarto GE, Johnson KC, Wactawski-Wende J, Ravdin PM, Schenken R, Hendrix SL, Rajkovica A, Rohan TE, Yasmmen S, Prentice RL (2010) Estrogen plus progestin and breast cancer incidence and mortality in postmenopausal women. JAMA 304:1684–1692

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Beral V, Million Women Study Collaborators (2003) Breast cancer and hormone-replacement therapy in the Million Woman Study. Lancet 362:419–427

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Kabos P, Haughian JM, Wang X, Dye WW, Finlayson C, Elias A, Horwitz KB, Sartorius CA (2011) Cytokeratin 5 positive cells represent a steroid receptor negative and therapy resistant subpopulation in luminal breast cancers. Breast Cancer Res Treat 128:45–55

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Zhou P, Li L-P, Luo S-Q, Jiang H-D, Zeng S (2008) Intestinal absorption of luteolin from peanut hull extract is more efficient than that from individual pure luteolin. J Agric Food Chem 56:296–300

    Google Scholar 

  21. Shimoi K, Okada H, Furugori M, Goda T, Takase S, Suzuki M, Hara Y, Yamamoto H, Kinae N (1998) Intestinal absorption of luteolin and luteolin 7-O-beta-glucoside in rats and humans. FEBS Lett 438:220–224

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Li L-P, Jiang H-D, Wu H, Zeng S (2005) Simultaneous determination of luteolin and apigenin in dog plamsa by RP-HPLC. J Pharm Biomed Anal 37:615–620

    Google Scholar 

  23. Moyer DL, Felix JC (1998) The effects of progesterone and progestins on endometrial proliferation. Contraception 57:399–403

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Felix JC, Farahmand S (1997) Endometrial glandular proliferation and estrogen receptor content during the normal menstrual cycle. Contraception 55:19–22

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Ferenczy A, Bertrand G, Gelfand MM (1979) Proliferation kinetics of human endometrium during the normal menstrual cycle. Am J Obstet Gynecol 133:859–867

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Li Q, Kannan A, DeMayo FJ, Lydon JP, Cooke PS, Yamagishi H, Srivastava D, Bagchi MK, Bagchi IC (2011) The antiproliferative action of progesterone in uterine epithelium is mediated by Hand2. Science 331:912–916

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Xing N, Chen Y, Mitchell SH, Young CYF (2001) Quercetin inhibits the expression and function of the androgen receptor in LNCaP prostate cancer cells. Carcinogenesis 22:409–414

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Williams SP, Sigler PB (1998) Atomic structure of progesterone complexed with its receptor. Nature 393:392–396

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Raaijmakers HCA, Versteegh JE, Uitdehaag JCM (2009) The x-ray structure of RU486 bound to the progesterone receptor in a destabilized agonistic conformation. J Biol Chem 284:19572–19579

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Shutt DA (1976) The effects of plant estrogens on animal reproduction. Endeavour 35:110–113

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Livingston AL (1978) Forage plant estrogens. J Toxicol Environ Health 4:301–324

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Farnsworth NR, Bingel AS, Cordell GA, Crane FA, Fong HHS (1975) Potential value of plants as antifertility agents. II. J Pharm Sci 64:717–754

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Verdeal K, Ryan DS (1979) Naturally-occurring estrogens in plant foodstuffs: a review. J Food Prot 42:577–583

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Martin PM, Horwitz KB, Ryan DS, McGuire WL (1978) Phytoestrogen interaction with estrogen receptors in human breast cancer cells. Endocrinology 103:1860–1867

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Farmakalidis EJ, Hathcock JN, Murphy PA (1985) Oestrogenic potency of genistein and daidzin in mice. J Food Prot 42:577–583

    Google Scholar 

  36. Miksicek RJ (1993) Commonly occurring plant flavonoids have estrogenic activity. Mol Pharmacol 44:37–43

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Le Bail JC, Varnat F, Nicolas JC, Habrioux G (1998) Estrogenic and antiproliferative activities on MCF-7 human breast cancer cells by flavonoids. Cancer Lett 130:209–216

    Google Scholar 

  38. van der Woude H, ter Veld MGR, Jacobs N, van der Saag PT, Murk AJ, Rietjens IMCM (2005) The stimulation of cell proliferation by quercetin is mediated by the estrogen receptor. Mol Nutr Food Res 49:763–771

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Ise R, Han D, Takahashi Y, Terasaka S, Inoue A, Tanji M, Kiyama R (2005) Expression profiling of the estrogen responsive genes in response to phytoestrogens using a customized DNA microarray. FEBS Lett 579:1732–1740

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Galluzzo P, Martini C, Bulzomi P, Leone S, Bolli A, Pallottini V, Marino M (2009) Quercetin-induced apoptotic cascade in cancer cells: antioxidant versus estrogen receptor α-dependent mechanisms. Mol Nutr Food Res 53:699–708

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Lin FM, Chen L-R, Lin E-H, Ke F-C, Chen H-Y, Tsai M-J, Hsiao P-W (2007) Compounds from Wedelia chinensis synergistically suppress androgen activity and growth in prostate cancer cells. Carcinogenesis 28:2521–2529

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Willemsen P, Scippo M-L, Kausel G, Figueroa J, Maghuin-Rogister G, Martial JA, Muller M (2004) Use of reporter cell lines for detection of endocrine-disrupter activity. Anal Bioanal Chem 378:655–663

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Scippo M-L, Argiris C, Van De Weerdt C, Muller M, Willemsen P, Martial J, Maghuin-Rogister G (2004) Recombinant human estrogen, androgen, and progesterone receptors for detection of potential endocrine disruptors. Anal Bioanal Chem 378:664–669

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Toh MF, Sohn J, Chen SN, Yao P, Bolton JL, Burdette JE (2012) Biological characterization of non-steroidal progestins from botanicals used for women’s health. Steroids 77:765–773

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Rosenberg RS, Grass L, Jenkins DJA, Kendall CWC, Diamandis EP (1998) Modulation of androgen and progesterone receptors by phytochemicals in breast cancer cell lines. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 248:935–939

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Mafuvadze B, Benakanakere I, López-Perez FR, Besch-Williford C, Ellersieck MR, Hyder SM (2011) Apigenin prevents development of medroxyprogesterone acetate-accelerated 7,12-dimethylbenz(a)anthracene-induced mammary tumors in Sprague–Dawley rats. Cancer Prev Res 4:1316–1324

    Google Scholar 

  47. Mafuvadze B, Liang Y, Besch-Williford C, Zhang X, Hyder SM (2012) Apigenin induces apoptosis and blocks growth of medroxyprogesterone acetate-dependent BT-474 xenograft tumors. Horm Cancer 3:160–171

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank S. Axlund for the T47D cell line containing a stably integrated CK5-luciferase reporter and for her help with the immunofluorescence experiments. M. Scully provided the Ishikawa cell line expressing estrogen receptor. We thank L. Litzenberger and S. Axlund for their assistance in the preparation of figures and K. Connaghan for guiding the statistical analysis. T.A.J. is supported by NIH/NCI R01CA125427and S.K.N by a dean’s bridge grant. University of Colorado Cancer Center Flow Cytometry and Cell Culture Shared Resources were supported by Cancer Center Support Grant (P30CA046934).

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Pathology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, 80045, USA

    Steven K. Nordeen, Betty J. Bona & James R. Lambert

  2. Department of Pharmacology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, 80045, USA

    David N. Jones

  3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, 80045, USA

    Twila A. Jackson

Authors
  1. Steven K. Nordeen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Betty J. Bona
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David N. Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. James R. Lambert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Twila A. Jackson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steven K. Nordeen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nordeen, S.K., Bona, B.J., Jones, D.N. et al. Endocrine Disrupting Activities of the Flavonoid Nutraceuticals Luteolin and Quercetin. HORM CANC 4, 293–300 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12672-013-0150-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12672-013-0150-1

Keywords

  • Flavonoid
  • Quercetin
  • Progesterone Receptor
  • Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
  • Antagonist Activity