Environmental oestrogens and breast cancer: evidence for combined involvement of dietary, household and cosmetic xenoestrogens

Many environmental compounds with oestrogenic activity are measurable in the human breast and oestrogen is a known factor in breast cancer development. Exposure to environmental oestrogens occurs through diet, household products and cosmetics, but concentrations of single compounds in breast tissue are generally lower than needed for assayable oestrogenic responses. Results presented here and elsewhere demonstrate that in combination, chemicals can give oestrogenic responses at lower concentrations, which suggests that in the breast, low doses of many compounds could sum to give a significant oestrogenic stimulus. Updated incidence figures show a continued disproportionate incidence of breast cancer in Britain in the upper outer quadrant of the breast which is also the region to which multiple cosmetic chemicals are applied. CONCLUSION: If exposure to complex mixtures of oestrogenic chemicals in consumer products is a factor in breast cancer development, then a strategy for breast cancer prevention could become possible.

Simple and effective technical procedures for the packing and application of nanospray PicoFrit HPLC columns for proteomic analyses

A simple procedure was developed for packing PicoFrit HPLC columns with chromatographic stationary phase using a reservoir fabricated from standard laboratory HPLC fittings. Packed columns were mounted onto a stainless steel ultra-low volume precolumn filter assembly containing a 0.5-mu m pore size steel frit. This format provided a conduit for the application of the nanospray voltage and protected the column from obstruction by sample material. The system was characterised and operational performance assessed by analysis of a range of peptide standards (n = 9).

Tests of sunspot number sequences: 3. Effects of regression procedures on the calibration of historic sunspot data

We use sunspot group observations from the Royal Greenwich Observatory (RGO) to investigate the effects of intercalibrating data from observers with different visual acuities. The tests are made by counting the number of groups RB above a variable cut-off threshold of observed total whole-spot area (uncorrected for foreshortening) to simulate what a lower acuity observer would have seen. The synthesised annual means of RB are then re-scaled to the full observed RGO group number RA using a variety of regression techniques. It is found that a very high correlation between RA and RB (rAB > 0.98) does not prevent large errors in the intercalibration (for example sunspot maximum values can be over 30 % too large even for such levels of rAB). In generating the backbone sunspot number (RBB), Svalgaard and Schatten (2015, this issue) force regression fits to pass through the scatter plot origin which generates unreliable fits (the residuals do not form a normal distribution) and causes sunspot cycle amplitudes to be exaggerated in the intercalibrated data. It is demonstrated that the use of Quantile-Quantile (“Q  Q”) plots to test for a normal distribution is a useful indicator of erroneous and misleading regression fits. Ordinary least squares linear fits, not forced to pass through the origin, are sometimes reliable (although the optimum method used is shown to be different when matching peak and average sunspot group numbers). However, other fits are only reliable if non-linear regression is used. From these results it is entirely possible that the inflation of solar cycle amplitudes in the backbone group sunspot number as one goes back in time, relative to related solar-terrestrial parameters, is entirely caused by the use of inappropriate and non-robust regression techniques to calibrate the sunspot data.