Environmental chemical exposures and breast cancer

E. Stanley; J. Plant; N. Voulvoulis; E. Stanley; J. Plant; N. Voulvoulis

doi:10.3934/environsci.2016.1.96

AIMS Environmental Science

2016, Volume 3, Issue 1: 96-114. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2016.1.96

Previous Article Next Article

Review Special Issues

Environmental chemical exposures and breast cancer

Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, UK

Received: 24 February 2015 Accepted: 02 February 2016 Published: 23 February 2016

As a hormone-sensitive condition with no single identifiable cause, breast cancer is a major health problem. It is characterized by a wide range of contributing factors and exposures occurring in different combinations and strengths across a lifetime that may be amplified during periods of enhanced developmental susceptibility and impacted by reproductive patterns and behaviours. The vast majority of cases are oestrogen-receptor positive and occur in women with no family history of the disease suggesting that modifiable risk factors are involved. A substantial body of evidence now links oestrogen-positive breast cancer with environmental exposures. Synthetic chemicals capable of oestrogen mimicry are characteristic of industrial development and have been individually and extensively assessed as risk factors for oestrogen-sensitive cancers. Existing breast cancer risk assessment tools do not take such factors into account. In the absence of consensus on causation and in order to better understand the problem of escalating incidence globally, an expanded, integrated approach broadening the inquiry into individual susceptibility breast cancer is proposed. Applying systems thinking to existing data on oestrogen-modulating environmental exposures and other oestrogenic factors characteristic of Westernisation and their interactions in the exposure, encompassing social, behavioural, environmental, hormonal and genetic factors, can assist in understanding cancer risks and the pursuit of prevention strategies. A new conceptual framework based on a broader understanding of the “system” that underlies the development of breast cancer over a period of many years, incorporating the factors known to contribute to breast cancer risk, could provide a new platform from which government and regulators can promulgate enhanced and more effective prevention strategies.

Keywords:

Citation: E. Stanley, J. Plant, N. Voulvoulis. Environmental chemical exposures and breast cancer[J]. AIMS Environmental Science, 2016, 3(1): 96-114. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2016.1.96

Related Papers:

[1]	Maoxiang Wang, Fenglan Hu, Meng Xu, Zhipeng Qiu . Keep, break and breakout in food chains with two and three species. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2021, 18(1): 817-836. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2021043
[2]	Hao Wang, Yang Kuang . Alternative models for cyclic lemming dynamics. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2007, 4(1): 85-99. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2007.4.85
[3]	Minus van Baalen, Atsushi Yamauchi . Competition for resources may reinforce the evolution of altruism in spatially structured populations. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(5): 3694-3717. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019183
[4]	Xiyan Yang, Zihao Wang, Yahao Wu, Tianshou Zhou, Jiajun Zhang . Kinetic characteristics of transcriptional bursting in a complex gene model with cyclic promoter structure. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(4): 3313-3336. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022153
[5]	A. Swierniak, M. Krzeslak, D. Borys, M. Kimmel . The role of interventions in the cancer evolution–an evolutionary games approach. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(1): 265-291. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019014
[6]	Vaibhava Srivastava, Eric M. Takyi, Rana D. Parshad . The effect of "fear" on two species competition. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(5): 8814-8855. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023388
[7]	Natalia L. Komarova . Mathematical modeling of cyclic treatments of chronic myeloid leukemia. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2011, 8(2): 289-306. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2011.8.289
[8]	Fabio Augusto Milner, Ruijun Zhao . A deterministic model of schistosomiasis with spatial structure. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2008, 5(3): 505-522. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2008.5.505
[9]	Ali Moussaoui, Vitaly Volpert . The influence of immune cells on the existence of virus quasi-species. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(9): 15942-15961. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023710
[10]	Jim M. Cushing . A Darwinian version of the Leslie logistic model for age-structured populations. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2025, 22(6): 1263-1279. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2025047

Abstract

1. Introduction

One of interactions between three types of populations is known as non-transitive, cyclic competition or a rock-paper-scissors relationship, that is, type $ A $ is stronger than type $ B $, and type $ B $ is superior to type $ C $, which in turn is better than $ A $. We can find several examples of this kind of interaction in nature; the most well-known are bacteria (e.g., ^[1,2,3,4]) and lizards (e.g., ^[5,6,7]).

Barreto et al. ^[8] proposed phenotypic and genotypic cyclic competition models to clarify the fact that three throat morphs in male lizards, known as orange, blue, and yellow, are maintained with a rock-paper-scissors relationship. Both models have the same equilibrium, but the latter gives a wider stability region than the former. Barreto et al. ^[8] analyzed their model by fixing all payoffs except two elements, which are given by variable parameters. However, such a case is difficult to manage because an internal equilibrium depends on these parameters. Then we consider an alternative setting as an internal equilibrium with equal frequencies for all phenotypes independent of parameters, namely, we use symmetric conditions of parameters to obtain global insights into the dynamics in this simplified system for the convenience of analysis.

In this paper, we re-examine stability conditions under the following situations: symmetric parameters for the phenotypic model, cyclic allele dominance rule, and spatial structure. We obtain the following results: (ⅰ) Cyclic allele dominance rule in a genotypic model gives a wider stable region of internal equilibrium than the allele dominance rule observed in lizards. (ⅱ) Spatial structure drastically changes the dynamical behavior, especially when all three phenotypes coexist in almost all the parameter spaces when both competition and dispersal occur locally.

In the next section, we review the phenotypic model and its corresponding genotypic model proposed by ^[8] and then restrict these models with two parameters to generate an internal equilibrium independent of the parameters. In section 3, we derive local stability conditions for each model. We consider cyclic allele dominance rule in section 4. In section 5, we investigate the effects of spatial structure on the stability of the internal equilibrium.

2. The phenotypic model and its corresponding genotypic model

First, we consider a phenotypic model of cyclic competition, or a rock-paper-scissors game, following ^[8]. There are three phenotypes $ O, B, $ and $ Y $. $ O $ has a better strategy than $ B $, and $ B $ is superior to $ Y $, which is, in turn, surpasses $ O $. When we use a payoff matrix in Table 1, this relation can be expressed by $ M_{OY} < M_{OO} < M_{OB}, M_{BO} < M_{BB} < M_{BY}, $ and $ M_{YB} < M_{YY} < M_{YO} $, where $ M_{IJ} $ is a payoff of focal individual $ I \in \{O, B, Y\} $ against an opponent $ J \in \{O, B, Y\} $.

Table 1. Payoff matrix of rock-paper-scissors game. $ M_{IJ} $ is a payoff of focal individual $ I \in \{O, B, Y\} $ against an opponent $ J \in \{O, B, Y\} $. The following magnitude relations hold: $ M_{OY} < M_{OO} < M_{OB}, M_{BO} < M_{BB} < M_{BY}, M_{YB} < M_{YY} < M_{YO} $.

	Individual $ J $
Individual $ I $	$ O $	$ B $	$ Y $
$ O $	$ M_{OO} $	$ M_{OB} $	$ M_{OY} $
$ B $	$ M_{BO} $	$ M_{BB} $	$ M_{BY} $
$ Y $	$ M_{YO} $	$ M_{YB} $	$ M_{YY} $

| Show Table

DownLoad: CSV

Using these payoffs obtained by the competition between two phenotypes, the dynamics of phenotypic model are defined as

$\begin{eqnarray} p_{O, n+1} & = & \frac{W_O}{W} p_{O, n}, \end{eqnarray}$ $

(2.1)

$\begin{eqnarray} p_{B, n+1} & = & \frac{W_B}{W} p_{B, n}, \end{eqnarray}$ $

(2.2)

$\begin{eqnarray} p_{Y, n+1} & = & \frac{W_Y}{W} p_{Y, n}, \end{eqnarray}$ $

(2.3)

with $ p_{O, n}, p_{B, n}, $ and $ p_{Y, n} $ as the fractions of phenotypes $ O, B, $ and $ Y $, respectively, at generation $ n $. Here $ W_O, W_B, $ and $ W_Y $ are the fitnesses of phenotypes $ O, B, $ and $ Y $, respectively, and $ W $ is the average fitness of the population:

$\begin{eqnarray} W_O & = & M_{OO} p_{O, n}+M_{OB} p_{B, n}+M_{OY} p_{Y, n}, \end{eqnarray}$ $

(2.4)

$\begin{eqnarray} W_B & = & M_{BO} p_{O, n}+M_{BB} p_{B, n}+M_{BY} p_{Y, n}, \end{eqnarray}$ $

(2.5)

$\begin{eqnarray} W_Y & = & M_{YO} p_{O, n}+M_{YB} p_{B, n}+M_{YY} p_{Y, n}, \end{eqnarray}$ $

(2.6)

$\begin{eqnarray} W & = & W_O p_{O, n} + W_B p_{B, n} + W_B p_{Y, n}. \end{eqnarray}$ $

(2.7)

This is a standard model of the rock-paper-scissors game (e.g., ^[9,10]).

At equilibrium we have

$\begin{equation} W = W_O = W_B = W_Y \end{equation}$ $

(2.8)

by eqs.(2.1)–(2.3). A unique internal equilibrium solution for the above simultaneous equations (2.8) with $ p_O + p_B + p_Y = 1 $ is

$\begin{eqnarray} p_O & = & \frac{M_1}{M_1 + M_2 + M_3}, \end{eqnarray}$ $

(2.9)

$\begin{eqnarray} p_B & = & \frac{M_2}{M_1 + M_2 + M_3}, \end{eqnarray}$ $

(2.10)

$\begin{eqnarray} p_Y & = & \frac{M_3}{M_1 + M_2 + M_3}, \end{eqnarray}$ $

(2.11)

where

$\begin{eqnarray} M_1 & = & M_{OB}(M_{BY}-M_{YY}) + M_{BB}(M_{YY}-M_{OY}) + M_{YB}(M_{OY}-M_{BY}), \end{eqnarray}$ $

(2.12)

$\begin{eqnarray} M_2 & = & M_{OY}(M_{BO}-M_{YO}) + M_{BY}(M_{YO}-M_{OO}) + M_{YY}(M_{OO}-M_{BO}), \end{eqnarray}$ $

(2.13)

$\begin{eqnarray} M_3 & = & M_{OO}(M_{BB}-M_{YB}) + M_{BO}(M_{YB}-M_{OB}) + M_{YO}(M_{OB}-M_{BB}). \end{eqnarray}$ $

(2.14)

We have another three equilibria $ (1, 0, 0), (0, 1, 0), $ and $ (0, 0, 1) $ as the boundary equilibria $ (\hat{p}_O, \hat{p}_B, \hat{p}_Y) $.

Next we move to a genotypic model corresponding to the above phenotypic model by the genotypic allele dominance rule in which an allele $ o $ dominates over two others, $ y $ and $ b $, and an allele $ y $ dominates $ b $. In other words, genotypes $ oo, oy, $ and $ ob $ are phenotype $ O $, genotypes $ yy $ and $ yb $ are phenotype $ Y $, and genotype $ bb $ is phenotype $ B $ (Table 2).

Table 2. Allele dominance rule (Ⅰ). An allele $ o $ is dominant to other alleles $ y $ and $ b $, then three genotypes $ oo $, $ oy $, and $ ob $ correspond to a phenotype $ O $. An allele $ y $ is dominant to an allele $ b $, then two genotypes $ yy $ and $ yb $ correspond to a phenotype $ Y $. An allele $ b $ is recessive to other alleles, then only one genotype $ bb $ corresponds to a phenotype $ B $.

Genotype		Phenotype
$ oo, oy, ob $	$ \to $	$ O $
$ yy, yb $	$ \to $	$ Y $
$ bb $	$ \to $	$ B $

| Show Table

DownLoad: CSV

Then phenotypic frequencies can be expressed by the genotypic frequencies $ g_{ij, n} \ (i, j \in \{o, y, b\}) $ at generation $ n $ as follows:

$\begin{eqnarray} p_{O, n} & = & g_{oo, n} + g_{oy, n} + g_{ob, n}, \end{eqnarray}$ $

(2.15)

$\begin{eqnarray} p_{Y, n} & = & g_{yy, n} + g_{yb, n}, \end{eqnarray}$ $

(2.16)

$\begin{eqnarray} p_{B, n} & = & g_{bb, n}. \end{eqnarray}$ $

(2.17)

Therefore the fitness of each genotype becomes

$\begin{eqnarray} W_O & = & W_{oo} = W_{oy} = W_{ob}, \end{eqnarray}$ $

(2.18)

$\begin{eqnarray} W_Y & = & W_{yy} = W_{yb}, \end{eqnarray}$ $

(2.19)

$\begin{eqnarray} W_B & = & W_{bb}. \end{eqnarray}$ $

(2.20)

Considering the above relationships of fitnesses and frequencies, first, the genotypic frequencies at generation $ n $ change:

$\begin{equation} \tilde{g}_{ij, n} = \frac{W_{ij}}{W} g_{ij, n} \qquad (i, j \in \{o, y, b\}). \end{equation}$ $

(2.21)

Second, the allele frequencies $ \tilde{f}_i \ (i \in \{o, y, b\}) $ at generation $ n $ are

$\begin{eqnarray} \tilde{f}_{o, n} & = & \tilde{g}_{oo, n} + \frac{1}{2} \tilde{g}_{oy, n} + \frac{1}{2} \tilde{g}_{ob, n}, \end{eqnarray}$ $

(2.22)

$\begin{eqnarray} \tilde{f}_{y, n} & = & \tilde{g}_{yy, n} + \frac{1}{2} \tilde{g}_{yb, n} + \frac{1}{2} \tilde{g}_{oy, n}, \end{eqnarray}$ $

(2.23)

$\begin{eqnarray} \tilde{f}_{b, n} & = & \tilde{g}_{bb, n} + \frac{1}{2} \tilde{g}_{yb, n} + \frac{1}{2} \tilde{g}_{ob, n}. \end{eqnarray}$ $

(2.24)

Third, assuming random mating gives the genotypic frequencies at generation $ n+1 $, $ g_{ij, n+1} \ (i, j \in \{o, y, b\}) $ as

$\begin{eqnarray} g_{ij, n+1} & = & 2\tilde{f}_{i, n} \tilde{f}_{j, n} \quad \mbox{if $i \ne j$}, \end{eqnarray}$ $

(2.25)

$\begin{eqnarray} g_{ii, n+1} & = & \tilde{f}_{i, n}^2, \end{eqnarray}$ $

(2.26)

then we can describe the above relations and dynamics (2.15)–(2.26) with only variables representing the genotypic frequencies $ g_{ij, n} (i, j \in \{0, y, b\}) $ as

$\begin{eqnarray} g_{oo, n+1} & = & \left(\frac{W_O}{W}\right)^2\left(g_{oo, n} + \frac{1}{2} g_{oy, n} + \frac{1}{2} g_{ob, n}\right)^2, \end{eqnarray}$ $

(2.27)

$\begin{eqnarray} g_{oy, n+1} & = & 2\frac{W_O}{W}\left(g_{oo, n} + \frac{1}{2} g_{oy, n} + \frac{1}{2} g_{ob, n}\right) \\ && \times \left\{\frac{W_Y}{W}\left(g_{yy, n} + \frac{1}{2} g_{yb, n}\right) + \frac{1}{2} \frac{W_{O}g_{oy, n}}{W}\right\}, \end{eqnarray}$ $

(2.28)

$\begin{eqnarray} g_{ob, n+1} & = & 2\frac{W_O}{W}\left(g_{oo, n} + \frac{1}{2} g_{oy, n} + \frac{1}{2} g_{ob, n}\right) \\ && \times \left(\frac{W_{B}g_{bb, n}}{W} + \frac{1}{2} \frac{W_{Y}g_{yb, n}}{W} + \frac{1}{2} \frac{W_{O}g_{ob, n}}{W}\right), \end{eqnarray}$ $

(2.29)

$\begin{eqnarray} g_{yy, n+1} & = & \left\{\frac{W_Y}{W}\left(g_{yy, n} + \frac{1}{2} g_{yb, n}\right) + \frac{1}{2} \frac{W_{O}g_{oy, n}}{W}\right\}^2, \end{eqnarray}$ $

(2.30)

$\begin{eqnarray} g_{yb, n+1} & = & 2\left\{\frac{W_Y}{W}\left(g_{yy, n} + \frac{1}{2} g_{yb, n}\right) + \frac{1}{2} \frac{W_{O}g_{oy, n}}{W}\right\} \\ && \times \left(\frac{W_{B}g_{bb, n}}{W} + \frac{1}{2} \frac{W_{Y}g_{yb, n}}{W} + \frac{1}{2} \frac{W_{O}g_{ob, n}}{W}\right), \end{eqnarray}$ $

(2.31)

$\begin{eqnarray} g_{bb, n+1} & = & \left(\frac{W_{B}g_{bb, n}}{W} + \frac{1}{2} \frac{W_{Y}g_{yb, n}}{W} + \frac{1}{2} \frac{W_{O}g_{ob, n}}{W}\right)^2, \end{eqnarray}$ $

(2.32)

where

$\begin{eqnarray} W_O & = & M_{OO} (g_{oo, n} + g_{oy, n} + g_{ob, n})+M_{OB} g_{bb, n}+M_{OY} (g_{yy, n} + g_{yb, n}), \end{eqnarray}$ $

(2.33)

$\begin{eqnarray} W_B & = & M_{BO} (g_{oo, n} + g_{oy, n} + g_{ob, n})+M_{BB} g_{bb, n}+M_{BY} (g_{yy, n} + g_{yb, n}), \end{eqnarray}$ $

(2.34)

$\begin{eqnarray} W_Y & = & M_{YO} (g_{oo, n} + g_{oy, n} + g_{ob, n})+M_{YB} g_{bb, n}+M_{YY} (g_{yy, n} + g_{yb, n}), \end{eqnarray}$ $

(2.35)

$\begin{eqnarray} W & = & W_O(g_{oo, n} + g_{oy, n} + g_{ob, n}) + W_B g_{bb, n} + W_Y(g_{yy, n} + g_{yb, n}). \end{eqnarray}$ $

(2.36)

Using the above equations, we can obtain the following relations:

$\begin{eqnarray} g_{oo, n+1}+\frac{1}{2}g_{oy, n+1}+\frac{1}{2}g_{ob, n+1} & = & \frac{W_O}{W} \left(g_{oo, n}+\frac{1}{2}g_{oy, n}+\frac{1}{2}g_{ob, n}\right), \end{eqnarray}$ $

(2.37)

$\begin{eqnarray} g_{yy, n+1}+\frac{1}{2}g_{yb, n+1}+\frac{1}{2}g_{oy, n+1} & = & \frac{W_Y}{W} \left(g_{yy, n}+\frac{1}{2}g_{yb, n}\right)+ \frac{1}{2}\frac{W_O}{W}g_{oy, n}, \end{eqnarray}$ $

(2.38)

$\begin{eqnarray} g_{bb, n+1}+\frac{1}{2}g_{yb, n+1}+\frac{1}{2}g_{ob, n+1} & = & \frac{W_B}{W} g_{bb, n}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{W_Y}{W} g_{yb, n}+ \frac{1}{2}\frac{W_O}{W} g_{ob, n}. \end{eqnarray}$ $

(2.39)

At equilibrium, by eq.(2.37), we have

$\begin{equation} W = W_O. \end{equation}$ $

(2.40)

By eq.(2.38) and eq.(2.40), we have

$\begin{equation} W = W_Y. \end{equation}$ $

(2.41)

By eqs.(2.39)–(2.41), we have

$\begin{equation*} W = W_B. \end{equation*}$ $

Therefore, because we also have the same relationships (2.8) for genetypic model, we have the same phenotypic equilibrium (2.9)–(2.11) with eqs.(2.12)–(2.14) as the corresponding phenotypic model.

3. Stability condition for equilibrium $ (1/3, 1/3, 1/3) $

The payoff matrix includes nine payoffs and is a little complicated. Following ^[8], we reduce it to two values. We fix the values of the payoffs at 1 for the competitions between the same phenotypes, but we also adopt the symmetric cases --- namely, we give a larger payoff $ \alpha > 1 $ to a stronger competitor and a smaller one $ \beta < 1 $ to a weaker competitor (Table 3), which results in the same equilibrium fractions of $ 1/3 $ for all three phenotypes ^[9].

Table 3. Payoff matrix with only two parameters. We obtain the same equilibrium fractions of $ 1/3 $ for all three phenotypes. Parameter ranges are given by $ 0 < \beta < 1 < \alpha $.

	Opponent Individual
Focal Individual	$ O $	$ B $	$ Y $
$ O $	$ 1 $	$ \alpha $	$ \beta $
$ B $	$ \beta $	$ 1 $	$ \alpha $
$ Y $	$ \alpha $	$ \beta $	$ 1 $

| Show Table

DownLoad: CSV

By using this reduced payoff matrix, eqs.(2.1)–(2.7) become

$\begin{eqnarray} p_{O, n+1} & = & \frac{(p_{O, n}+\alpha p_{B, n}+\beta p_{Y, n})p_{O, n}}{(p_{O, n}+\alpha p_{B, n}+\beta p_{Y, n})p_{O, n} + (\beta p_{O, n}+ p_{B, n}+\alpha p_{Y, n})p_{B, n} +(\alpha p_{O, n}+\beta p_{B, n}+ p_{Y, n})p_{Y, n}}, \end{eqnarray}$ $

(3.1)

$\begin{eqnarray} p_{B, n+1} & = & \frac{(\beta p_{O, n}+ p_{B, n}+\alpha p_{Y, n})p_{B, n}}{(p_{O, n}+\alpha p_{B, n}+\beta p_{Y, n})p_{O, n} + (\beta p_{O, n}+ p_{B, n}+\alpha p_{Y, n})p_{B, n} +(\alpha p_{O, n}+\beta p_{B, n}+ p_{Y, n})p_{Y, n}}, \end{eqnarray}$ $

(3.2)

$\begin{eqnarray} p_{Y, n+1} & = & \frac{(\alpha p_{O, n}+\beta p_{B, n}+ p_{Y, n})p_{Y, n}}{(p_{O, n}+\alpha p_{B, n}+\beta p_{Y, n})p_{O, n} + (\beta p_{O, n}+ p_{B, n}+\alpha p_{Y, n})p_{B, n} +(\alpha p_{O, n}+\beta p_{B, n}+ p_{Y, n})p_{Y, n}}. \end{eqnarray}$ $

(3.3)

By eqs.(2.12)–(2.14),

$\begin{equation*} M_1 = M_2 = M_3 = \alpha^2+\beta^2 -(\alpha+\beta+\alpha\beta) + 1, \end{equation*}$ $

so that an internal equilibrium (2.9)–(2.11) becomes

$\begin{equation} p_O = p_Y = p_B = \frac{1}{3}. \end{equation}$ $

(3.4)

The linearized system of eqs.(3.1)–(3.3) about an internal equilibrium (3.4) gives the following Jacobian matrix:

$\begin{equation*} \frac{1}{3(1+\alpha+\beta)} \begin{pmatrix} 4+\alpha+\beta & -2+\alpha-2\beta & -2-2\alpha+\beta \\ -2-2\alpha+\beta & 4+\alpha+\beta & -2+\alpha-2\beta \\ -2+\alpha-2\beta & -2-2\alpha+\beta & 4+\alpha+\beta \end{pmatrix}. \end{equation*}$ $

Then the characteristic equation of the linearized system becomes

$\begin{equation*} \lambda(\lambda^2 + a_1 \lambda + a_2) = 0, \end{equation*}$ $

where

$\begin{eqnarray} a_1 & = & -\frac{4+\alpha+\beta}{1+\alpha+\beta}, \end{eqnarray}$ $

(3.5)

$\begin{eqnarray} a_2 & = & \frac{4+2(\alpha+\beta)+\alpha^2+\beta^2}{(1+\alpha+\beta)^2}. \end{eqnarray}$ $

(3.6)

Jury conditions or Schur-Cohn criteria (e.g., ^[11]) for second-degree characteristic equations $ \lambda^2 + a_1 \lambda + a_2 = 0 $ are known as

$\begin{equation} |a_1| \lt 1 + a_2 \lt 2. \end{equation}$ $

(3.7)

Because $ a_1 < 0 $ from eq.(3.5), the left inequality of eq.(3.7) becomes $ -a_1 < 1 + a_2 $, that is, $ a_1 + a_2 + 1 > 0 $, which holds by the calculation using eqs.(3.5)–(3.6):

$\begin{equation*} a_1 + a_2 + 1 = \frac{(1-\alpha)^2+(1-\beta)^2+(\alpha-\beta)^2}{2(1+\alpha+\beta)^2} \gt 0. \end{equation*}$ $

The right inequality of eq.(3.7) $ 1 + a_2 < 2 $, that is, $ a_2 -1 < 0, $ gives

$\begin{equation} \alpha\beta \gt 1. \end{equation}$ $

(3.8)

Notice that it is symmetric with respect to $ \alpha $ and $ \beta $; namely, eq.(3.8) does not change when $ \alpha $ and $ \beta $ are exchanged.

Indeed, it is known that eq.(3.8) becomes a globally asymptotic stable condition, which can be checked using the Lyapunov function ^[9]. If eq.(3.8) does not hold, then we can observe the trajectory of the heteroclinic cycle between three vertices in the triangular space for three phenotypic frequencies ^[9] similar to the three-species Lotka-Volterra cyclic competition model ^[12] (See Figure 1(a) and (b)).

Figure 1. Trajectories of phenotypic frequencies. (a)-(c) for eqs.(3.1)-(3.3), (d)-(f) for eqs.(2.27)-(2.36) with Table 3. $ \beta $ is fixed to $ 0.3 $. $ \alpha = 2 $ for (a) and (d), $ \alpha = 3 $ for (b) and (e), $ \alpha = 4 $ for (c) and (f). Figure 2(a) tells us that internal equilibrium is unstable for (a), (b) and (d), but stable for (c), (e) and (f). Colorbars indicate the time steps of the dynamics.

DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

Figure 2. Stable and unstable region on parameter spaces of the equilibrium point (3.4) for (a) allele dominance rule (Ⅰ) and (b) allele dominance rule (Ⅱ). $ \alpha $ and $ \beta $ indicate payoffs for strong and weak competitors, respectively. Green, red and yellow regions indicate stable for both phenotypic and genotypic models, stable for genotypic model but unstable for phenotypic one and unstable for both phenotypic and genotypic models, respectively. Allele dominance rule (Ⅱ) has larger stability region than (Ⅰ).

DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

On the other hand, for a genotypic model, we get the following unique internal equilibrium by eqs.(2.27)–(2.36):

$\begin{eqnarray} g_{oo} & = & \frac{\left(\sqrt{3}-\sqrt{2}\right)^2}{2}, \end{eqnarray}$ $

(3.9)

$\begin{eqnarray} g_{oy} & = & \left(\sqrt{3}-\sqrt{2}\right)\left(\sqrt{2}-1\right), \end{eqnarray}$ $

(3.10)

$\begin{eqnarray} g_{ob} & = & \frac{2}{3}\left(\sqrt{3}-\sqrt{2}\right), \end{eqnarray}$ $

(3.11)

$\begin{eqnarray} g_{yy} & = & \frac{1}{3}\left(\sqrt{2}-1\right)^2, \end{eqnarray}$ $

(3.12)

$\begin{eqnarray} g_{yb} & = & \frac{2}{3}\left(\sqrt{2}-1\right), \end{eqnarray}$ $

(3.13)

$\begin{eqnarray} g_{bb} & = & \frac{1}{3}. \end{eqnarray}$ $

(3.14)

Of course,

$\begin{eqnarray*} p_O & = & g_{oo} + g_{oy} + g_{ob} = \frac{1}{3}, \\ p_Y & = & g_{yy} + g_{yb} = \frac{1}{3}, \\ P_B & = & g_{bb} = \frac{1}{3}. \end{eqnarray*}$ $

We can say that an internal equilibrium does not depend on the parameters $ \alpha $ nor $ \beta $ on either the phenotyic or genotypic models.

The characteristic equation of the linearized system of eqs.(2.27)–(2.32) with eqs.(2.33)–(2.36) about an internal equilibrium (3.9)–(3.14) becomes

$\begin{equation*} \lambda^4(\lambda^2 + a_1 \lambda + a_2) = 0, \end{equation*}$ $

where

$\begin{eqnarray} a_1 & = & -\frac{2\sqrt{3}}{3(1+\alpha+\beta)} \left\{\left(2\sqrt{2}+2-\sqrt{3}\right)+\left(2\sqrt{3}-\sqrt{2}-1\right)(\alpha+\beta)\right\}, \end{eqnarray}$ $

(3.15)

$\begin{eqnarray} a_2 & = & \frac{1}{(1+\alpha+\beta)^2} \left[8\sqrt{2}-11+4\sqrt{3}\left(\sqrt{2}-2\right) \right. \\ &+& \left\{2\sqrt{2}\left(4+\sqrt{3}\right)-\left(6\sqrt{3}+5\right)\right\}(\alpha^2+\beta^2) \\ &+& 2\left\{4+3\sqrt{3}-\sqrt{2}\left(4+\sqrt{3}\right)\right\}(\alpha+\beta) \\ &-& \left. 2\left\{2\sqrt{2}\left(2+\sqrt{3}\right)-\left(7+2\sqrt{3}\right)\right\}\alpha\beta \right]. \end{eqnarray}$ $

(3.16)

Noticing that $ a_1 < 0 $ from eq.(3.15), the left inequality of eq.(3.7) holds because, using eqs.(3.15)–(3.16),

$\begin{eqnarray*} && a_1 + a_2 + 1 \\ & = & \frac{4\sqrt{3}\left(\sqrt{3}-\sqrt{2}\right)\left(\sqrt{2}-1\right)}{3(1+\alpha+\beta)^2} \left\{(1-\alpha)^2+(1-\beta)^2+(\alpha-\beta)^2\right\} \gt 0. \end{eqnarray*}$ $

The right inequality of eq.(3.7) $ a_2 -1 < 0 $ becomes

$\begin{equation} \sqrt{2}\left(\sqrt{3}+1\right)\left(\sqrt{3}+\sqrt{2}\right)(\alpha\beta-1) + \alpha(\alpha-1)+\beta(\beta-1) \gt 0, \end{equation}$ $

(3.17)

which is a quadratic inequation on $ \alpha $ or $ \beta $ and is also symmetric with respect to $ \alpha $ and $ \beta $.

Figure 2(a) shows the local stability region obtained by eq.(3.8) and eq.(3.17). We can observe their dynamics by numerical simulations (Figure 1).

4. Cyclic allele dominance rule expands the stability region of the internal equilibrium

Common side-blotched lizards have an allele dominance rule (Ⅰ), that is, an allele $ o $ for an orange throat is the most dominant over others, an allele $ y $ for a yellow one is intermediate, and an allele $ b $ for a blue one is the most recessive (Table 2). In other words, this allele dominance rule has three kinds of alleles: most dominant, intermediate, and most recessive. We refer to these as $ o $, $ y $, and $ b $, respectively.

Although perhaps we have not yet discovered it in realistic genetic systems, we can theoretically consider another allele dominance rule (Ⅱ), that is, all alleles having intermediate dominance: $ o $ dominant over $ y $, $ y $ over $ b $, and $ b $ over $ o $ (Table 4). This rule could be called as a "cyclic allele dominance rule." Similarly, in this rule, we name these alleles $ o $, $ y $, and $ b $, and any allele can be replaced by another one.

Table 4. Allele dominance rule (Ⅱ). An allele $ o $ is dominant to an allele $ y $, then two genotypes $ oo $ and $ oy $ correspond to a phenotype $ O $. An allele $ y $ is dominant to an allele $ b $, then two genotypes $ yy $ and $ yb $ correspond to a phenotype $ Y $. An allele $ b $ is dominant to an allele $ o $, then two genotypes $ bb $ and $ ob $ correspond to a phenotype $ B $.

Genotype		Phenotype
$ oo, oy $	$ \to $	$ O $
$ yy, yb $	$ \to $	$ Y $
$ bb, ob $	$ \to $	$ B $

| Show Table

DownLoad: CSV

A calculation for allele dominance rule (Ⅱ) similar to that for allele dominance rule (Ⅰ) reveals that the boundary of local stability obtained from the Jury condition (3.7) is determined by

$\begin{equation} 8(\alpha\beta-1)+\alpha(\alpha-1)+\beta(\beta-1) = 0, \end{equation}$ $

(4.1)

which only differs from the first calculation in the smaller coefficient of $ \alpha\beta-1 $ compared to eq.(3.17). Figure 2(b) shows the local stability region by allele dominance rule (Ⅱ) using eq.(4.1), which clearly has a larger stability region than rule (Ⅰ).

From a theoretical point of view, we should also consider the cases with the same allele dominance rules but with different cyclic competitive strengths. Then another possible combination exists, that is, Table 2 with $ \alpha < 1 $ and $ \beta > 1 $. However, this combination gives the same stability regions as Figure 2(a) by the symmetry of the boundary equation (3.17) on the parameters $ \alpha $ and $ \beta $; eq.(3.17) does not change when $ \alpha $ and $ \beta $ are exchanged. On the other hand, it is trivial that no qualitative difference exists between the two cases: Table 4 with $ \alpha > 1 $ and $ \beta < 1 $ and Table 4 with $ \alpha < 1 $ and $ \beta > 1 $.

5. Spatial simulation

Barreto et al. ^[8] showed the same stabilizing effect in a genetic system of lizards as the previous section of this paper. Here we introduce a spatial structure into a phenotypic model and consider its effects on population dynamics.

The phenotypic model includes two processes: competition and reproduction. When we add a spatial structure into this model, we restrict the spatial range, both for the opponents against a focal individual and for the dispersion of offspring by reproduction. When we set such a spatial restriction as a whole or as a neighborhood, we consider four distinct cases: (a) global competition and global dispersion, (b) global competition and local dispersion, (c) local competition and global dispersion, and (d) local competition and local dispersion.

The Monte Carlo simulation procedures for the above four cases use the following algorithm (See the C program code in the Electronic Supplementary Materials):

(ⅰ) We prepare a two-dimensional square lattice space, each-side with a size of 100, so that the total number of sites on a whole lattice becomes $ N = 100\times 100 = 10000 $. We use a periodic boundary condition. The states $ O $, $ Y $, and $ B $ are randomly distributed according to the initial fractions: $ (p_O, p_Y, p_B) = (0.3, 0.3, 0.4) $, respectively.

(ⅱ) The first process is competition, which determines the payoffs after games against randomly chosen opponents. All individuals experience this process. The payoffs for all the sites $ i \ ( = 1, \ldots, N) $ in a whole population with size $ N $ are determined in order; the site $ (\ell, m) $ with $ x $-coordinate $ \ell \ (\ell = 1, \ldots, 100) $ and $ y $-coordinate $ m \ (m = 1, \ldots, 100) $ on the two-dimensional square lattice is numbered $ (\ell-1)\times 100 + m $. An individual $ I \in\{O, B, Y\} $ is included on the site $ i $. Another site $ j $ is randomly chosen in a whole population in the cases of (a) and (b) or, in the cases of (c) and (d), in the nearest neighboring four individuals. An individual $ J \in\{O, B, Y\} $ is included on the site $ j $. Two individuals $ I $ and $ J $ compete and an individual $ I $ gets a payoff by a payoff matrix (Table 3). All the payoffs are transferred to their offspring, and they are gathered in one offspring pool in the cases of (a) and (c) or, in the cases of (b) and (d), in local offspring pools. Here, we use lower cases for the sites and corresponding upper cases for the states of the individuals on those sites.

(ⅲ) The second process is dispersion, which gives positions of offspring selected from the offspring pool. The model is discrete-generation: all individuals die, and the states at the next time steps for all the sites $ i \ ( = 1, \ldots, N) $ in a whole population with size $ N $ are replaced in order. For each site, an individual is randomly chosen from a whole pool for (a) and (c) or from each local pool for (b) and (d); this choice is made in proportion to the relative payoff against total payoffs in a whole population in the cases of (a) and (c) or in the nearest neighboring four individuals in the cases of (b) and (d). In other words, this random selection depends on $ \frac{W_O}{W}, \frac{W_Y}{W} $, and $ \frac{W_B}{W} $. After the previous process (ⅱ), all the individuals have their own payoffs. In the cases of (a) and (c), we can then calculate $ W, W_O, W_Y $, and $ W_B $ as the total payoffs for, respectively, a whole population, phenotype $ O $, phenotype $ Y $, and phenotype $ B $. In the cases of (b) and (d), we can obtain $ W, W_O, W_Y $, and $ W_B $ as the total payoffs for, respectively, a local population, phenotype $ O $ in the local population, phenotype $ Y $ in the local population, and phenotype $ B $ in the local population. Here a local population is restricted to individuals on five sites: the focal site and its nearest neighboring four sites.

(ⅳ) The above procedures (ⅱ) and (ⅲ) are repeated for $ 10000 \ ( = 100 \times 100) $ time steps for each parameter combination of $ \alpha = 1, 1.05, 1.10, \ldots, 5 $ and $ \beta = 0, 0.05, 0.10, \ldots, 1 $. The repetition of the simulations is 100 for each parameter combination, and we record the fraction of the coexistence of the three phenotypes.

We show the results of the Monte Carlo simulation by the above algorithm in Figure 3. Case (a) completely coincides with Figure 2(a). Case (b) gives a wider coexistence region due to local dispersion. Case (c) has the same result as case (a) because the global dispersal produces the same effect with random choices of opponents from the population. Case (d) shows coexistence in almost all the simulations for the entire parameter space. Therefore, we can conclude that locally limited interactions between individuals strongly promote the coexistence of all phenotypes.

Figure 3. Phase diagram for coexistence and non-coexistence. Each parameter $ \alpha $ or $ \beta $ is set for every 0.05 increment. Initial values are given as $ (p_O, p_B, p_Y) = (0.3, 0.3, 0.4) $. Simulation runs are repeated for 100 times for each parameter set and their fractions are shown by continuous gradation between green and yellow. Green indicates coexistence until the end of simulations. Yellow corresponds to non-coexistence in which one phenotype goes extinct, and then an inferior phenotype disappears and ultimately only one phenotype survives, due to finite size of the system. (Upper left panel) global competition and global dispersion; (Upper right panel) global competition and local dispersion; (Lower left panel) local competition and global dispersion; (Lower right panel) local competition and local dispersion.

DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

In case (d), individuals with the same phenotypes tend to cluster and adopt collective behavior, so changes of state occur only on the boundaries between these clusters, causing a slower change of total population and stabilization (See Figure 4). Indeed ^[13] already reached such a conclusion from a continuous-time cyclic competition model that also calculated the average domain size or boundary length at a steady state. This spatial structure in the population is gradually produced by both local competition and local dispersion, and, in turn, also gives different results in competition and dispersion, either globally or locally.

Figure 4. Snapshot of spatial pattern by Monte Carlo simulation of phenotypic model on two-dimensional square lattice space after some time. Both competition and dispersion occur locally. We can observe that several dozens of same phenotypic individuals are clustering. (Right panel) The whole spatial pattern with $ 1000 \times 1000 $ lattice sites. (Left panel) The upper left part of spatial pattern with $ 100 \times 100 $ lattice sites. Colors indicate $ O, B, Y $ as orange, blue, yellow, respectively. $ \alpha = 2.0 $ and $ \beta = 0.3 $.

DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

6. Discussion

Similar to ^[8], we show the difference between the phenotypic model and its corresponding genotypic model, but we can also give an explicit condition using a simplified system. In addition, we investigate other allele dominance rules to clarify their effects on the stability of internal equilibrium compared to the allele dominance rule observed in lizards. Unfortunately, however, we cannot specify the mechanism by which the genotypic model stabilizes the system more than the phenotypic model. To discover it, we need to find models other than cyclic competition in which the genotypic models give different dynamic behaviors than the corresponding phenotypic models.

A recent proposal by ^[14] may have important implications for future work in this area. As they point out, the present three-strategy payoff matrix can be built up as the sum of nine independent Fourier components, $ \mathbf{g}(1), \ldots, \mathbf{g}(9) $, with orthogonality and normalization:

$\begin{eqnarray*} \begin{pmatrix} 1 & \alpha & \beta \\ \beta & 1 & \alpha \\ \alpha & \beta & 1 \end{pmatrix} & = & (1+\alpha+\beta) \cdot \frac{1}{3} \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 1 & 1 \\ 1 & 1 & 1 \\ 1 & 1 & 1 \end{pmatrix} \\ &+& \frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}(2-\alpha-\beta) \cdot \frac{1}{\sqrt{18}} \begin{pmatrix} 2 & -1 & -1 \\ -1 & 2 & -1 \\ -1 & -1 & 2 \end{pmatrix} \\ &+& \frac{\sqrt{6}}{2}(\beta-\alpha) \cdot \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}} \begin{pmatrix} 0 & -1 & 1 \\ 1 & 0 & -1 \\ -1 & 1 & 0 \end{pmatrix} \\ & = & (1+\alpha+\beta) \mathbf{g}(1) + \frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}(2-\alpha-\beta) \mathbf{g}(8) + \frac{\sqrt{6}}{2}(\beta-\alpha) \mathbf{g}(9), \end{eqnarray*}$ $

where we have $ \mathbf{g}(1), \mathbf{g}(8) $, and $ \mathbf{g}(9) $ as irrelevant constant terms, a coordination (Potts) component that equally favors the formation of one of the homogeneous states, and a cyclic (rock-paper-scissors) component, respectively. This formulation may offer more detailed insights into dynamical behaviors if we examine cases with various combinations of coefficients corresponding to the strengths of these components.

The intuitive reason local competition and local dispersion both stabilize an internal equilibrium is that several dozens of identical phenotypic individuals gather and adopt collective behavior, restricting phenotypic changes on the boundary. To investigate their stabilization mechanisms in detail, we should further rely on other kinds of analysis, especially spatial pattern formation, which may play an important role in stabilizing the dynamics. So far, the concept of "vortex" has been proposed to characterize the spatial pattern ^[15,16,17], and it has also been shown that clockwise or anti-clockwise rotating spiral patterns with characteristic sizes emerge that yield finite size effects by cyclic competition models or rock-paper-scissors games in physics ^{[18,19,20,21]} and evolutionary games ^[22,23]. More precisely, the coexistence of three strategies transforms into one of the homogeneous states after a suitable relaxation time if the characteristic length of patterns exceeds a threshold value comparable to the system size. Here we use a small lattice space size $ (100 \times 100) $ for Figure 3, but we should further investigate these finite size effects using a larger lattice space, such as $ 1000 \times 1000 $, as in Figure 4.

In this paper, we only show whether three phenotypes can coexist or not in the long run using a Monte Carlo simulation. However, we can expect an internal equilibrium to be asymptotically stable for the case of coexistence in larger Monte Carlo systems than in smaller ones (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Time series of frequencies by Monte Carlo simulation of phenotypic model on two-dimensional square lattice space. Both competition and dispersion occur locally. We can confirm that fluctuations are due to the effect of finite size of lattice sites. The numbers of lattice sites are (a) $ 1000 \times 1000 $, (b) $ 100 \times 100 $, (c) $ 10 \times 10 $. All phenotypes survived after 2000 Monte Carlo steps in (a) and (b), but in (c) $ B $ went extinct around 70 generations by chance, and then $ O $ died out almost inevitably (but not definitely because of finite system size) because $ Y $ is stronger than $ O $. Colors indicate $ O, B, Y $ as orange, blue, yellow, respectively. Initial frequencies are $ (p_O, p_B, p_Y) = (0.3, 0.3, 0.4) $. $ \alpha = 2.0 $ and $ \beta = 0.3 $.

DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

Here we can only show the condition of the locally asymptotic stability of a genotypic model. We expect that condition to be replaced by global stability, but we leave it as a future problem.

In addition, we would like to examine a genotypic model in a lattice space and clarify whether it becomes more stable than a phenotypic model and to what degree its stability can be evaluated by, for example, the return time of perturbation to an internal equilibrium.

Throughout this paper, we use only symmetric conditions of parameters to obtain global insights into the dynamics, then we should study more complicated models with symmetry-breaking interactions, including the parameter setting of ^[8], in future research.

Acknowledgements

I sincerely appreciate Prof. Akira Sasaki for giving me useful comments and encouraging me. I would also like to thank three anonymous reviewers whose comments were helpful in revising the manuscript.

Conflict of interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

[1]	IARC (2014) ‘World Cancer Report 2014’ Ed. BW Stewart & CP Wild ISBN 978-92-832-0429-9.
[2]	Schottenfeld D, Beebe-Dimmer JL, Buffler PA, et al. (2013) Current perspective on the global and United States cancer burden attributable to lifestyle and environmental risk factors. Annu Rev Public Health 34: 97-117. doi: 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031912-114350
[3]	Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, et al. (2008) Cancer Statistics, 2008. CA Cancer J Clin 58: 71-96. doi: 10.3322/CA.2007.0010
[4]	Colditz GA (1998) Relationship between estrogen levels, use of hormone replacement therapy, and breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 90: 814-823. doi: 10.1093/jnci/90.11.814
[5]	Fraumeni JF Jr, Lloyd JW, Smith EM, et al. (1969) Cancer mortality among nuns: role of marital status in etiology of neoplastic disease in women. J Natl Cancer Inst 42: 455-468.
[6]	Britt K, Short R (2012) The plight of nuns: hazards of nulliparity. Lancet 379: 2322-2323. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61746-7
[7]	Scoccianti C, Lauby-Secretan B, Bello PY, et al. (2014) Female breast cancer and alcohol consumption: a review of the literature. Am J Prev Med 46: 16-25.
[8]	Romieu I, Scoccianti C, Chajès V, et al. (2015) Alcohol intake and breast cancer in the European prospective investigation into cancer and nutrition. Int J Cancer 137: 1921-1930.
[9]	Liu Y, Nguyen N, Colditz GA (2015) Links between alcohol consumption and breast cancer: a look at the evidence. Womens Health (Lond Engl) 11: 65-77.
[10]	Kabat GC, Kim MY, Hollenbeck AR, et al. (2014) Attained height, sex, and risk of cancer at different anatomic sites in the NIH-AARP diet and health study. Cancer Causes Control 25: 1697-1706.
[11]	Arnaldez F, Helman LJ (2012) Targeting the Insulin Growth Factor Receptor 1. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am 26: 527-542. doi: 10.1016/j.hoc.2012.01.004
[12]	Tikk K, Sookthai D, Fortner RT, et al. (2015) Circulating prolactin and in situ breast cancer risk in the European EPIC cohort: a case-control study. Breast Cancer Res 17: 49. doi: 10.1186/s13058-015-0563-6
[13]	Ronckers CM, Erdmann CA, Land CE (2005) Radiation and breast cancer: a review of current evidence. Breast Cancer Res 7: 21-32. doi: 10.1186/bcr970
[14]	UNSCEAR Sources and effects of ionizing radiation: United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation: UNSCEAR 2000 report to the General Assembly, with scientific annexes. United Nations; New York: 2000. Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation.
[15]	Madeddu C, Gramignano G, Floris C, et al. (2014) Role of inflammation and oxidative stress in post-menopausal oestrogen-dependent breast cancer. J Cell Mol Med 18: 2519-2529. doi: 10.1111/jcmm.12413
[16]	Li J, Huang Y, Zhang BN, et al. (2014) Body Mass Index and Breast Cancer Defined by Biological Receptor Status in Pre-Menopausal and Post-Menopausal Women: A Multicenter Study in China. PLoS One 9: 87224. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0087224
[17]	McCormack VA, Highnam R, Perry N, et al. (2007) Comparison of a New and Existing Method of Mammographic Density Measurement. Intramethod Reliability and Associations with Known Risk Factors. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 16: 1148-1154.
[18]	Pollán M, Ascunce N, Ederra M, et al. (2013) Mammographic density and risk of breast cancer according to tumor characteristics and mode of detection: a Spanish population-based case-control study. Breast Cancer Res 15: R9. doi: 10.1186/bcr3380
[19]	Farvid MS, Cho E, Chen W, et al. (2014) Dietary protein sources in early adulthood and breast cancer incidence: prospective cohort study. BMJ 348: g3437. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g3437
[20]	Dumitrescu RG, Marian C, Krishnan SS, et al. (2010) Familial and racial determinants of tumour suppressor genes promoter hypermethylation in breast tissues from healthy women. Cell Mol Med 14: 1468-1475.
[21]	Sueta A, Yamamoto Y, Yamamoto-Ibusuki M, et al. (2014) An Integrative Analysis of PIK3CA Mutation, PTEN, and INPP4B Expression in Terms of Trastuzumab Efficacy in HER2-Positive Breast Cancer. PLoS One 9: e116054. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0116054
[22]	World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF), Continuous Update Project (CUP). 2007. Available from: http: //www.dietandcancerreport.org/cancer_resource_center/downloads/Second_Expert_Report_full.pdf
[23]	Institute of Medicine (IOM), Contemporary Issues for Protecting Patients in Cancer Research - Workshop Summary. 2014. Available from: http: //iom.nationalacademies.org/reports/2014/contemporary-issues-for-protecting-patients-in-cancer-research-workshop-summary.aspx#sthash.Kr7ZcQl9.dpuf
[24]	Interagency Breast Cancer & Environmental Research Coordinating Commitee (IBCERCC), Breast Cancer and the Environment. Prioritising Prevention. 2013. Available from: https://www.niehs.nih.gov/about/assets/docs/breast_cancer_and_the_environment_prioritizing_prevention_508.pdf
[25]	Diamanti-Kandarakis E, Bourguignon JP, Giudice LC (2009) Endocrine-disrupting chemicals: an Endocrine Society Scientific Statement. Endocr Rev 30: 293-342. doi: 10.1210/er.2009-0002
[26]	Kim YJ, Lee E, Lee HS (2015) High prevalence of breast cancer in light polluted areas in urban and rural regions of South Korea: An ecologic study on the treatment prevalence of female cancers based on National Health Insurance data. Chronobiol Int 32: 657-667. doi: 10.3109/07420528.2015.1032413
[27]	Soto AM, Sonnenschein C (2010) Environmental causes of cancer: endocrine disruptors as carcinogens. Nat Rev Endocrinol 6: 363-370. doi: 10.1038/nrendo.2010.87
[28]	Holliday R (2006) Epigenetics: a historical overview. Epigenetics 1: 76-80. doi: 10.4161/epi.1.2.2762
[29]	Rodenhiser D, Mann M (2006) Epigenetics and human disease: translating basic biology into clinical applications. Can Med Assoc J 174: 341-348. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.050774
[30]	Bell CG, Beck S (2010) The epigenomic interface between genome and environment in common complex diseases. Brief Funct Genom 9: 477-485. doi: 10.1093/bfgp/elq026
[31]	Paola P (2010) Epigenetic Signatures in Breast Cancer: Clinical Perspective. Breast Care (Basel) 5: 66-73. doi: 10.1159/000309138
[32]	Taioli E (2008) Gene-environment interaction in tobacco-related cancers. Carcinogenesis 29: 1467-1474. doi: 10.1093/carcin/bgn062
[33]	Kanwal R, Gupta S (2010) Epigenetics and cancer. J Appl Physiol 109: 598-605. doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00066.2010
[34]	Kanwal R, Gupta S (2012) Epigenetic modifications in cancer. Clin Genet 81: 303-311. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-0004.2011.01809.x
[35]	Cancer Research UK (CRUK), Breast cancer statistics. 2015. Available from: http: //www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/breast-cancer
[36]	Anderson WF, Jatoi I, Tse J, et al. (2010) Male breast cancer: A population-based comparison with female breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 28: 232-239 doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.23.8162
[37]	Kravchenko J, Akushevich I, Seewaldt VL, et al. (2011) Breast cancer as heterogeneous disease: contributing factors and carcinogenesis mechanisms. Breast Cancer Res Treat 128: 483-493. doi: 10.1007/s10549-011-1347-z
[38]	Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F, et al. (2014) Cancer Incidence and Mortality Worldwide: IARC Cancer Base No. 10 Lyon, France.
[39]	Brody JG, Moysicj KB, Humblet O (2007) Environmental Pollutants and Breast Cancer: epidemiologic studies. Cancer 109: 2667-711. doi: 10.1002/cncr.22655
[40]	Gray J, Evans N, Taylor B, et al. (2009) State of the evidence: the connection between breast cancer and the environment. Int J Occup Environ Health 15: 43-78 doi: 10.1179/oeh.2009.15.1.43
[41]	Urquhart R, Grunfeld E, Jackson L, et al. (2013) Cross-disciplinary research in cancer: an opportunity to narrow the knowledge-practice gap. Curr Oncol 20: e512-521. doi: 10.3747/co.20.1487
[42]	Gehlert S (2013) Turning Disciplinary Knowledge into Solutions. J Adolesc Health 52: S98-102.
[43]	Popper KR (1963) Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul, p. 88.
[44]	Leung GM, Thach TQ, Lam TH, et al. (2002) Trends in breast cancer incidence in Hong Kong between 1973 and 1999: an age-period-cohort analysis. Br J Cancer 87: 982-988. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6600583
[45]	Rudel RA, Fenton SE, Ackerman JM, et al. (2011) Environmental Exposures and Mammary Gland Development: State of the Science, Public Health Implications, and Research Recommendations. Environ Health Perspect 119: 1053-1061. doi: 10.1289/ehp.1002864
[46]	Hoffmann I (2003) Transcending reductionism in nutrition research. Am J Clin Nutr 78: 514S-516S.
[47]	Desiere F (2004) Towards a systems biology understanding of human health: interplay between genotype, environment and nutrition. Biotechnol Annu Rev 10: 51-84. doi: 10.1016/S1387-2656(04)10003-3
[48]	Sterman JD (2006) Learning from Evidence in a Complex World. Am J Public Health 96: 505-514. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2005.066043
[49]	Fardet A, Rock E (2014) Toward a new philosophy of preventive nutrition: from a reductionist to a holistic paradigm to improve nutritional recommendations. Adv Nutr 5: 430-446. doi: 10.3945/an.114.006122
[50]	Forouzanfar MH, Foreman KJ, Delossantos AM, et al. (2011) Breast and cervical cancer in 187 countries between 1980 and 2010: a systematic analysis. Lancet 378: 1461-84. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61351-2
[51]	International Agency for Research on Cancer GLOBOCAN, Cancer Fact Sheets. 2012. Available from: http: //globocan.iarc.fr/Pages/fact_sheets_cancer.aspx
[52]	Edwards BK, Noone AM, Mariotto AB, et al. (2014) Annual Report to the Nation on the status of cancer, 1975-2010, featuring prevalence of comorbidity and impact on survival among persons with lung, colorectal, breast, or prostate cancer. Cancer 120: 1290-1314. doi: 10.1002/cncr.28509
[53]	Siegel RL, Fedewa SA, Miller KD, et al. (2015) Cancer statistics for Hispanics/Latinos. Cancer J Clin 62: 283-298.
[54]	Weir HK, Thompson TD, Soman A, et al. (2015) The past, present, and future of cancer incidence in the United States: 1975 through 2020. Cancer 121: 1827-1837. doi: 10.1002/cncr.29258
[55]	Edwards BK, Howe HL, Ries LA, et al. (2002) Annual Report to the Nation on the status of cancer, 1973-1999, featuring implications of age and aging on U.S. cancer burden. Cancer 94: 2766-2792.
[56]	Zhang X, Ho S-M (2011) Epigenetics meets endocrinology. J Mol Endocrinol 46: 11-32. doi: 10.1677/JME-10-0053
[57]	Macciò A, Madeddu C (2011) Obesity, Inflammation, and Postmenopausal Breast Cancer: Therapeutic Implications. Sci World J 11: 2020-2036. doi: 10.1100/2011/806787
[58]	Tironaa MT, Sehgala R, Ballestera O (2010) Prevention of Breast Cancer (Part I): Epidemiology, Risk Factors, and Risk Assessment Tools. Cancer Investig 28: 743-750.
[59]	Prüss-Ustün A, Vickers C, Haefliger P (2011) Knowns and unknowns on burden of disease due to chemicals: a systematic review. Environ Health 10: 9. doi: 10.1186/1476-069X-10-9
[60]	Karsli-Ceppioglu S, Dagdemir A, Judes G, et al. (2014) Epigenetic mechanisms of breast cancer: an update of the current knowledge. Epigenomics 6: 651-664. doi: 10.2217/epi.14.59
[61]	McKinlay R, Plant JA, Bell JN, et al. (2008) Endocrine disrupting pesticides: implications for risk assessment. Environ Int 34: 168-183. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2007.07.013
[62]	Porter P (2008) “Westernizing” women’s risks? Breast cancer in lower-income countries. N Engl J Med 358: 213-216.
[63]	Darbre PD, Harvey PW (2008) Paraben esters: review of recent studies of endocrine toxicity, absorption, esterase and human exposure, and discussion of potential human health risks. J Appl Toxicol 28: 561-578. doi: 10.1002/jat.1358
[64]	Cogliano VJ, Baan R, Straif K, et al. (2011) Preventable exposures associated with human cancers. Cancer Inst 103: 1827-1839. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djr483
[65]	Coombs NJ, Cronin KA, Taylor RJ, et al. (2010) The impact of changes in hormone therapy on breast cancer incidence in the US population. Cancer Causes Control 21: 83-90.
[66]	Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Ervik M, et al. GLOBOCAN 2012 v1.0, Cancer Incidence and Mortality Worldwide: IARC CancerBase No. 11 (Internet). Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer. 2013. Available from: http: //globocan.iarc.fr
[67]	Youlden DR, Susanna I, Cramb M, et al. (2014) Incidence and mortality of female breast cancer in the Asia-Pacific region. Cancer Biol Med 11: 101-115.
[68]	Linos E, Spanos D, Rosner BA, et al. (2008) Effects of Reproductive and Demographic Changes on Breast Cancer Incidence in China: A Modeling Analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst 100: 1352-1360. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djn305
[69]	Kim YJ, Lee E, Lee HS, et al. (2015) High prevalence of breast cancer in light polluted areas in urban and rural regions of South Korea: An ecologic study on the treatment prevalence of female cancers based on National Health Insurance data. Chronobiol Int 32: 657-667. doi: 10.3109/07420528.2015.1032413
[70]	Song QK, Li J, Huang R, et al. (2014) Age of diagnosis of breast cancer in china: almost 10 years earlier than in the United States and the European union. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 15: 10021-10025. doi: 10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.22.10021
[71]	United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), United Nations Environment Programme: Programme Performance Report, 2014. Available from: http: //web.unep.org/ourplanet/september-2015/unep-publications/united-nations-environment-programme-programme-performance-report
[72]	Sharpe RM, Irvine DS (2004) How strong is the evidence of a link between environmental chemicals and adverse effects on human reproductive health? BMJ 328: 447-451. doi: 10.1136/bmj.328.7437.447
[73]	Soto AM, Sonnenchein C, Chung KL (2003) The E-SCREEN Assay as a tool to identify estrogens: an update on estrogenic environmental pollutants. Environ Health Perspect 103: 113-122.
[74]	President’s Cancer Panel (PCP). The Future of Cancer Research Panel Annual Report 2010-2011. Available from: http: //web.unep.org/ourplanet/september-2015/unep-publications/united-nations-environment-programme-programme-performance-report
[75]	Institute of Medicine. Identifying and Reducing Environmental Health Risks of Chemicals in Our Society - Workshop Summary. April 2014. Available from: http: //iom.nationalacademies.org/reports/2014/identifying-and-reducing-environmental-health-risks-of-chemicals-in-our-society.aspx#sthash.ydFX6pHy.dpuf
[76]	Mahoney MM, Padmanabhan V (2010) Developmental programming: impact of fetal exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals on gonadotropin-releasing hormone and estrogen receptor mRNA in sheep hypothalamus. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 247: 98-104. doi: 10.1016/j.taap.2010.05.017
[77]	Fenton SE, Birnbaum LS (2015) Timing of Environmental Exposures as a Critical Element in Breast Cancer Risk. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 100: 3245-3250. doi: 10.1210/jc.2015-2848
[78]	Heindel JJ (2005) The fetal basis of adult disease: Role of environmental exposures--introduction. Birth Defects Research Part A. Clin Mol Teratol 73: 131-132. doi: 10.1002/bdra.20119
[79]	Mouritsen A, Aksglaede L, Sørensen K, et al. (2010) Hypothesis: exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals may interfere with timing of puberty. Int J Androl 33: 346-359. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2605.2010.01051.x
[80]	Mousavi SM, Fallah M, Sundquist K, et al. (2012) Age- and time-dependent changes in cancer incidence among immigrants to Sweden: colorectal, lung, breast and prostate cancers. Int J Cancer 131: 122-128. doi: 10.1002/ijc.27334
[81]	Birnbaum LS, Fenton SE (2003) Cancer and developmental exposure to endocrine disruptors. Environ Health Perspect 111: 389-394. doi: 10.1289/ehp.111-a389
[82]	Sasco A (2001) Epidemiology of Breast Cancer: An environmental disease? Apmis 109: 321-332.
[83]	Andreeva VA, Unger JB, Pentz MA (2007) Breast cancer among immigrants. A systematic review and new research directions. J Immigr Minor Health 9: 307-322.
[84]	John EM, Phipps A, Koo J (2005) Migration history, acculturation and breast cancer risk in Hispanic women. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 14: 2905-2913. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-05-0483
[85]	Ziegler RG, Hoover RN, Pike MC (1993) Migration patterns and breast cancer risk in Asian Women. J Natl Cancer Inst 85: 1819-1827. doi: 10.1093/jnci/85.22.1819
[86]	Stanford JL, Herrinton LJ, Schwartz SM, et al. (1995) Breast cancer incidence in Asian migrants to the United States and their descendants. Epidemiology 6: 181-183. doi: 10.1097/00001648-199503000-00017
[87]	Hemminki K, Li X (2002) Cancer risks in second-generation immigrants to Sweden. Int J Cancer 99: 229-237. doi: 10.1002/ijc.10323
[88]	Lichtenstein P, Niels V, Pai K (2000) Environmental and heritable factors in the causation of cancer; analyses of cohorts of twins from Sweden, Denmark and Finland. N Engl J Med 343: 78-85. doi: 10.1056/NEJM200007133430201
[89]	Baker SG, Lichtenstein P, Kaprio J, et al. (2005) Genetic susceptibility to prostate, breast and colorectal cancer among Nordic twins. Biometrics 61: 55-56 doi: 10.1111/j.0006-341X.2005.030924.x
[90]	Boehm JS, Zhao JJ, Yao J (2007) Integrative genomic approaches identify IKBKE as a breast cancer oncogene. Cell 129: 1065-1079. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2007.03.052
[91]	Hunter DJ, Kraft P, Jacobs KB (2007) A genome-wide association identifies alleles in FGFR2 associated with risk of sporadic postmenopausal breast cancer. Nat Genet 129: 1275-1286.
[92]	Zuo T, Wang L, Morrison C (2007) FOXP3 is an X-linked breast cancer suppressor gene and an important repressor of the HER-2/ErbB2 oncogene. Cell 129: 1275-1286.
[93]	Polyák E, Gombos K, Hajnal B, et al. (2010) Effects of artificial sweeteners on body weight, food and drink intake. Acta Physiol Hung 97: 401-407. doi: 10.1556/APhysiol.97.2010.4.9
[94]	Curtis C, Shah SP, Chin SF, et al. (2012) The genomic and transcriptomic architecture of 2,000 breast tumours reveals novel subgroups. Nature 486: 346-352.
[95]	Stephens PJ, Tarpey PS, Davies H, et al. (2012) The Landscape of Cancer Genes and Mutational Processes in Breast Cancer. Nature 486: 400-404.
[96]	Choudhury M, Friedman JE (2012) Epigenetics and microRNAs in Preeclampsia. Clin Exp Hypertens 34: 334-341. doi: 10.3109/10641963.2011.649931
[97]	Byler S, Goldgar S, Heerboth S, et al. (2014) Genetic and epigenetic aspects of breast cancer progression and therapy. Anticancer Res 34: 1071-1077.
[98]	Karsli-Ceppioglu S, Ngollo M, Judes G, et al. (2015) The Role of Soy Phytoestrogens on Genetic and Epigenetic Mechanisms of Prostate Cancer. Enzymes 37: 193-221. doi: 10.1016/bs.enz.2015.05.004
[99]	Martinez-Arguelles DB, Papadopoulos V (2015) Identification of hot spots of DNA methylation in the adult male adrenal in response to in utero exposure to the ubiquitous endocrine disruptor plasticizer di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate. Endocrinology 156: 124-133. doi: 10.1210/en.2014-1436
[100]	Higley EB, Newsted JL, Zhang X, et al. (2010) Assessment of chemical effects on aromatase activity using the H295R cell line. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 17: 1137-1148. doi: 10.1007/s11356-009-0285-3
[101]	Andersson AM, Soder O, Toppari J, et al. (2012) The impacts of endocrine disrupters on wildlife, people and their environments - The Weybridge+15 (1996-2011) report.
[102]	International Agency for research on Cancer (IARC), AGENTS CLASSIFIED BY THE IARC MONOGRAPHS, VOLUMES 1-114. 2015. Available from: http: //monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/
[103]	Schäfers C, Teigeler M, Wenzel A, et al. (2007) Concentration- and time-dependent effects of the synthetic estrogen, 17alpha-ethinylestradiol, on reproductive capabilities of the zebrafish, Danio rerio. J Toxicol Environ Health A 70: 768-779. doi: 10.1080/15287390701236470
[104]	Gluckman PD, Hanson MA (2006) Changing times: the evolution of puberty. Mol Cell Endocrinol 254: 26-31.
[105]	Odom L, Taylor H (2010) Environmental induction of the fetal epigenome. Expert Rev Obstet Gynecol 5: 657-664. doi: 10.1586/eog.10.58
[106]	Barker DJ, Osmond C, Thornburg KL, et al. (2013) The intrauterine origins of Hodgkin's lymphoma. Cancer Epidemiol 37: 321-323. doi: 10.1016/j.canep.2013.01.004
[107]	Siddiqui MK, Anand M, Mehrotra PK (2004) Biomonitoring of organochlorines in women with benign and malignant breast disease. Environ Res 98: 250-257.
[108]	Nickerson K (2006) Environmental contaminants in breast milk. J Midwifery Women’s Health 51: 26-34. doi: 10.1016/j.jmwh.2005.09.006
[109]	Russo J, Russo I (2007) The role of estrogen in breast cancer. In: Molecular Basis of Breast Cancer. Berling: Springer-Verlag Chapter 4: 89-136
[110]	Santodonato J (1997) Review of the estrogenic and antiestrogenic activity of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons: relationship to carcinogenicity. Chemosphere 34: 835-848.
[111]	Cohn BA, Wolff MA, Cirillo PM, et al. (2007) DDT and breast cancer in young women: new data on the significance of age at exposure. Environ Health Perspect 115: 1406-1414.
[112]	Partsch CJ, Sippell WG (2001) Pathogenesis and epidemiology of precocious puberty. Effects of exogenous oestrogens. Hum Reprod Update 7: 292-302. doi: 10.1093/humupd/7.3.292
[113]	Muñoz-de-Toro M, Markey CM, Wadia PR, et al. (2005) Perinatal exposure to bisphenol-A alters peripubertal mammary gland development in mice. Endocrinology 146: 4138-4147. doi: 10.1210/en.2005-0340
[114]	Gajdos ZK, Hirschhorn JN, Palmert MR (2009) What controls the timing of puberty? An update on progress from genetic investigation. Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes 16: 16-24. doi: 10.1097/MED.0b013e328320253c
[115]	Biro FM, Greenspan LC, Galvez MP, et al. (2013) Onset of Breast Development in a Longitudinal Cohort. Peadiatrics 132: 1019-1027.
[116]	McKelvey W, Brody JG, Aschengrau A, et al. (2004) Association between residence on Cape Cod, Massachusetts, and breast cancer. Ann Epidemiol 14: 89-94. doi: 10.1016/S1047-2797(03)00120-0
[117]	Reiner JL, Kannan K (2006) A survey of polycyclic musks in selected household commodities from the United States. Chemosphere 62: 867-873 doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2005.10.006
[118]	Singh K, Oates C, Plant J, et al. (2014) Undisclosed chemicals--implications for risk assessment: a case study from the mining industry. Environ Int 68: 1-15. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2014.02.012
[119]	Hauser R, Skakkebaek NE, Hass U, et al. (2015) Male reproductive disorders, diseases, and costs of exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the European Union. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 100: 1267-1277.
[120]	Millikan R, DeVoto E, Duell EJ (2000) Dichloro-diphenyldichloroethene polychlorinated biphenyls and breast cancer among African-American and white women in North Carolina. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 9: 1233-1240.
[121]	Laden F, Ishibe N, Hankinson SE (2000) Polychlorinated biphenyls, cytochrome P450 1A1 and breast cancer risk in the Nurses’ Health Study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 11: 1560-1565.
[122]	Olivier M, Hainaut P (2001) TP53 mutation patterns in breast cancers: searching for clues of environmental carcinogenesis. Sem Cancer Biol 11: 353-360. doi: 10.1006/scbi.2001.0390
[123]	Daxenberger A, Ibarreta D, Meyer HH (2001) Possible health impact of animal oestrogens in food. Hum Reprod Update 7: 340-355. doi: 10.1093/humupd/7.3.340
[124]	Murray TJ, Maffini MV, Ucci AA, et al. (2007) Induction of mammary gland ductal hyperplasias and carcinoma in situ following fetal bisphenol A exposure. Reprod Toxicol 23: 383-390. doi: 10.1016/j.reprotox.2006.10.002
[125]	Geens T, Aerts D, Berthot C, et al. (2012) A review of dietary and non-dietary exposure to bisphenol-A. Food Chem Toxicol 50: 3725-3740. doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2012.07.059
[126]	Dairkee SH, Luciani-Torres MG, Moore DH, et al. (2013) Bisphenol-A-induced inactivation of the p53 axis underlying deregulation of proliferation kinetics, and cell death in non-malignant human breast epithelial cells. Carcinogenesis 34: 703-712. doi: 10.1093/carcin/bgs379
[127]	Fernandez SV, Huang Y, Snider KE, et al. (2012) Expression and DNA methylation changes in human breast epithelial cells after bisphenol A exposure. Int J Oncol 41: 369-377.
[128]	Patterson AR, Mo X, Shapiro A, et al. (2015) Sustained reprogramming of the estrogen response after chronic exposure to endocrine disruptors. Mol Endocrinol 29: 384-395. doi: 10.1210/me.2014-1237
[129]	Gibson DA, Saunders PT (2014) Endocrine disruption of oestrogen action and female reproductive tract cancers. Endocr Relat Cancer 21: T13-31. doi: 10.1530/ERC-13-0342
[130]	Durmaz V, Schmidt S, Sabri P, et al. (2013) Hands-off linear interaction energy approach to binding mode and affinity estimation of estrogens. J Chem Inf Model 53: 2681-2688. doi: 10.1021/ci400392p
[131]	Hilakivi-Clarke L, de Assis S, Warri A (2013) Exposures to synthetic estrogens at different times during the life, and their effect on breast cancer risk. J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia 18: 25-42. doi: 10.1007/s10911-013-9274-8
[132]	Soto A, Brisken C, Schaeberle C, et al. (2013) Does cancer start in the womb? Altered mammary gland development and predisposition to breast cancer due to in utero exposure to endocrine disruptors. J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia 18: 199-208.
[133]	Olea N, Pazos P, Exposito J (1998) Inadvertent exposure to xenoestrogens. Eur J Cancer Prev 7: S17-23.
[134]	Takeda K, Tsukue N, Yoshida S (2004) Endocrine-disrupting activity of chemicals in diesel exhaust fumes and diesel exhaust particles. Environ Sci Technol 11: 33-45.
[135]	Maunder RJ, Matthiessen P, Sumpter JP, et al. (2007) Impaired reproduction in three-spined sticklebacks exposed to ethinyl estradiol as juveniles. Biol Reprod 77: 999-1006. doi: 10.1095/biolreprod.107.062240
[136]	Coe TS, Söffker MK, Filby AL, et al. (2010) Impacts of early life exposure to estrogen on subsequent breeding behavior and reproductive success in zebrafish. Environ Sci Technol 44: 6481-6487. doi: 10.1021/es101185b
[137]	Farmer JL, Orlando EF (2012) Creating females? Developmental effects of 17α-ethynylestradiol on the mangrove rivulus' ovotestis. Integr Comp Biol 52: 769-780.
[138]	Machtinger R, Orvieto R, Bisphenol A (2014) Oocyte maturation, implantation, and IVF outcome: review of animal and human data. Reprod Biomed Online 29: 404-410. doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2014.06.013
[139]	Pawlowski S, Sauer A, Shears JA, (2004) Androgenic and estrogenic effects of the synthetic androgen 17alpha-methyltestosterone on sexual development and reproductive performance in the fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) determined using the gonadal recrudescence assay. Aquat Toxicol 68: 277-291. doi: 10.1016/j.aquatox.2004.03.018
[140]	Jobling S, Burn RW, Thorpe K, et al. (2009) Statistical modeling suggests that antiandrogens in effluents from wastewater treatment works contribute to widespread sexual disruption in fish living in English rivers. Environ Health Perspect 117: 797-802. doi: 10.1289/ehp.0800197
[141]	Boscia F, Passaro C, Gigantino V, et al. (2014) High levels of GPR30 protein in human testicular carcinoma in situ and seminomas correlate with low levels of estrogen receptor-beta and indicate a switch in estrogen responsiveness. J Cell Physiol 230: 1290-1297.
[142]	Macrina AL, Ott TL, Roberts RF, et al. (2012) Estrone and estrone sulfate concentrations in milk and milk fractions. J Acad Nutr Diet 112: 1088-1093. doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2012.02.005
[143]	Harris HR, Bergkvist L, Wolk A (2015) An estrogen-associated dietary pattern and breast cancer risk in the Swedish Mammography Cohort. Int J Cancer 137: 2149-2154. doi: 10.1002/ijc.29586
[144]	Fucic A, Gamulin M, Ferencic Z (2012) Environmental exposure to xenoestrogens and oestrogen related cancers: reproductive system, breast, lung, kidney, pancreas, and brain. Environ Health 11: S8. doi: 10.1186/1476-069X-11-S1-S8
[145]	Kochukov MY, Jeng YJ, Watson CS (2009) Alkylphenol xenoestrogens with varying carbon chain lengths differentially and potently activate signaling and functional responses in GH3/B6/F10 somatomammotropes. Environ Health Perspect 117: 723-730. doi: 10.1289/ehp.0800182
[146]	Wozniak AL, Bulayeva NN, Watson CS (2005) Xenoestrogens at picomolar to nanomolar concentrations trigger membrane estrogen receptor-alpha-mediated Ca2+ fluxes and prolactin release in GH3/B6 pituitary tumor cells. Environ Health Perspect.113: 431-439.
[147]	Dorea JG, Cruz-Granja AC, Lacayo-Romero ML, et al. (2001) Perinatal metabolism of dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene in Nicaraguan mothers. Environ Res 86: 229-237. doi: 10.1006/enrs.2001.4277
[148]	Frederiksen M, Vorkamp K, Mathiesen L (2010) Placental transfer of the polybrominated diphenyl ethers BDE-47, BDE-99 and BDE-209 in a human placenta perfusion system: an experimental study. Environ Health 5: 32.
[149]	Leino O, Kiviranta H, Karjalainen AK, et al. (2013) Pollutant concentrations in placenta. Food Chem Toxicol 54: 59-69.
[150]	Vizcaino E, Grimalt JO, Fernández-Somoano A, et al. (2014) Transport of persistent organic pollutants across the human placenta. Environ Int 65: 107-115. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2014.01.004
[151]	Reed CE, Fenton SE (2013) Exposure to diethylstilbestrol during sensitive life stages: a legacy of heritable health effects. Birth Defects Res C Embryo Today 99: 134-146. doi: 10.1002/bdrc.21035
[152]	Gershenson C.Self-organising Traffic Lights (2005) Complex Syst 16: 29-53.
[153]	Johnson N (2009) Simply Complexity. Oneworld Publications, London.
[154]	Meadows DH (2008) Thinking In Systems. Chelsea Green Publishing Company White River Junction VT 05001.
[155]	Forrester JW (1971) Counterintuitive Behaviour of Social Systems. Technol Rev 73: 52-68.
[156]	Wild CP (2005) Complementing the Genome with an “Exposome”: The Outstanding Challenge of Environmental Exposure Measurement in Molecular Epidemiology. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 14: 1847. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-05-0456
[157]	Rappaport SM (2011) Implications of the exposome for exposure science. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol 21: 5-9. doi: 10.1038/jes.2010.50
[158]	Kanwal R, Gupta S (2012) Epigenetic modifications in cancer. Clin Genet 81: 303-311. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-0004.2011.01809.x
[159]	Claus EB, Risch N, Thompson WD (1991) Genetic analysis of breast cancer in the cancer and steroid hormone study. Am J Hum Genet 48: 232-242.
[160]	Amir A, Evans DG, Shenton A, et al. (2003) Evaluation of breast cancer risk assessment packages in the family history evaluation and screening programme. J Med Genet 40: 807-814. doi: 10.1136/jmg.40.11.807
[161]	Amir E, Freedman OC, Seruga B, et al. (2010) Assessing women at High Risk of Breast Cancer: A Review of Risk Assessment Models. Oxford University Press.
[162]	California Breast Cancer Research Programme (CBCRP), A Model of Breast Cancer Causation. Available from: http: //www.cbcrp.org/causes/index.php

This article has been cited by:

1.	A. Szolnoki, B. F. de Oliveira, D. Bazeia, Pattern formations driven by cyclic interactions: A brief review of recent developments, 2020, 131, 1286-4854, 68001, 10.1209/0295-5075/131/68001
2.	Sourav Kumar Sasmal, Yasuhiro Takeuchi, Editorial: Mathematical Modeling to Solve the Problems in Life Sciences, 2020, 17, 1551-0018, 2967, 10.3934/mbe.2020167

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2016 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)

通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com

1.
沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院沈阳 110142

AIMS Environmental Science

1.2 2.7

Metrics

Article views(6822) PDF downloads(1581) Cited by(0)

Preview PDF

Download XML

Export Citation

Article outline

Show full outline

AIMS Environmental Science

Environmental chemical exposures and breast cancer

Related Papers:

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. The phenotypic model and its corresponding genotypic model

3. Stability condition for equilibrium $ (1/3, 1/3, 1/3) $

4. Cyclic allele dominance rule expands the stability region of the internal equilibrium

5. Spatial simulation

6. Discussion

Acknowledgements

Conflict of interest

References

This article has been cited by:

Reader Comments

通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com

Metrics

Other Articles By Authors

Catalog

AIMS Environmental Science

Environmental chemical exposures and breast cancer

Related Papers:

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. The phenotypic model and its corresponding genotypic model

3. Stability condition for equilibrium $ (1/3, 1/3, 1/3) $

4. Cyclic allele dominance rule expands the stability region of the internal equilibrium

5. Spatial simulation

6. Discussion

Acknowledgements

Conflict of interest

References

This article has been cited by:

Reader Comments

通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com

Metrics

Other Articles By Authors

Related pages

Tools

Export File

Citation

Format

Content

Catalog