Advertisement

Critical Periods of Neuroendocrine Development: Effects of Prenatal Xenobiotics

  • Sumner J. Yaffe
  • Lorah D. Dorn
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 296)

Abstract

It is now generally accepted that the developing fetus may be adversely affected by exposure to drugs and environmental chemicals. The stage of development of the intrauterine host is a major determinant of the resultant drug or chemical action. With rare exception, all foreign compounds are transmitted across the placenta, and depending upon their solubility and chemical structure, achieve varying concentrations in the fetus. Historically, the concept that external agents could adversely effect the fetus was first expounded by Gregg1 in Australia nearly 50 years ago when he demonstrated that rubella infection in the mother could lead to congenital cataracts in the newborn infant. During the several decades following Gregg’s report, most concern regarding drug effects on the fetus had to do with the perinatal period, particularly with the effect of narcotics and analgesics on the ability of the newborn infant to sustain respiration following delivery.

Keywords

Luteinizing Hormone Reproductive Function Male Offspring Female Offspring Testicular Volume 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    N. M. Gregg, Congenital cataract following German measles in the mother, Trans Ophthalmol Soc Aust. 3:35–41 (1941).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    C. Gupta and H. Karavolas, Lowered ovarian conversion of 14C-pregnenolone and other metabolites during phenobarbital block of PMS-induced ovulation in immature rats: Inhibition of 3a-hydroxysteroid denydrogenation, Endocrinol 92:117–124 (1973).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    D. Trolle, Decrease of total serum bilirubin concentration in newborn infants after phenobarbital treatment. Lancet 2:705–710 (1968).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    C. Gupta and S. J. Yaffe, Reproductive dysfunction in female offspring after prenatal exposure to phenobarbital: Critical period of action. Pediatr Res 15:1488–1491 (1981).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    C. Gupta, B. R. Sonawane, S. J. Yaffe, B. H., Phenobarbital exposure in utero: Alterations in female reproductive functions in rats, Science 208:508–510 (1980).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    B. R. Sonawane and S. J. Yaffe, Delayed effects of drug exposure during pregnancy: Reproductive function. Biol Res in Pregnancy 4(2):48–55 (1983).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    C. Gupta, S. J. Yaffe, and B. H. Shapiro, Prenatal exposure to phenobarbital permanently decreases testosterone and causes reproductive dysfunction. Science 216:640–642 (1982).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    C. Gupta, B. H. Shapiro, and S. J. Yaffe. Reproductive function in male rats following prenatal, exposure to phenobarbital. Ped Pharmacol 1:55–62 (1980).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    T. Valaes, S. Petmezaki, and S. A. Doxiadis SA, Effect on neonatal hyperbilirubinemia of phenobarbital during pregnancy or after birth: practical value of the treatment in a population with high risk of unexplained severe neonatal jaundice, in: “Bilirubin Metabolism in the Newborn.” Birth Defects Original Article Series, The National Foundation, March of Dimes 6:46 (1970).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    T. Valaes, K. Kipouros, S. Petmezaki, S. M. Solman, S. A. Doxiadis. Effectiveness and safety of prenatal phrnobarbital for the prevention of neonatal jaundice. Pediatr Res 14:947 (1980).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    The second follow-up of the Lesbos cohort was designed and organized by T. Valaes, S. J. Yaffe, G. Chrousos and E. Susman. It was carried out under NIH Contract No. NICHD-CRMC-84–35.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    W. A. Marshall and J. M. Tanner, Variation in the pattern of pubertal change in boys. Arch Pis Child 45:13–23 (1970).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    W. A. Marshall, J. M. Tanner, Variation in the pattern of pubertal change in girls. Arch Pis Child 44:291–301 (1969).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    D. Wechsler, Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children Revised. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation, 1974.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    T. M. Achenbach, C. S. Edelbrock, Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist and the Revised Child Behavior Profile. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry, 1983.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    D. Offer, E. Ostrov, and K. I. Howard, The Offer Self-Image Questionnaire for Adolescents: A Manual. Chicago: Michael Reese Hospital, 1977.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    T. M. Achenbach and C. S. Edelbrock, Manual for the Youth Self-Report and Profile. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry, 1987.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sumner J. Yaffe
    • 1
  • Lorah D. Dorn
    • 2
  1. 1.National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institutes of HealthBethesdaUSA
  2. 2.National Institute of Mental HealthBethesdaUSA

Personalised recommendations