Key Takeaways & Executive Findings
- •• Exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) is increasingly recognized as a potential risk factor for type 1 diabetes (T1DM), with mechanisms involving immune dysregulation, oxidative stress, and epigenetic changes. • Bisphenol A, pesticides, and heavy metals are among the most studied EDCs, with epidemiological and animal evidence supporting their role in T1DM pathogenesis. • Current research faces challenges including inconsistent exposure assessment methods, unclear dose-response relationships, and population heterogeneity, necessitating standardized approaches. • Future studies should focus on identifying critical exposure windows and employing multi-omics integration to develop preventive strategies for T1DM.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As a group of ubiquitous exogenous compounds in the environment, endocrine disrupting chemicals can interfere with endocrine system function and contribute to various diseases. In recent years, the correlation between exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals and type 1 diabetes risk has become a research hotspot, but the exact underlying mechanisms remain unclear. OBJECTIVE: To review the research progress on the association between endocrine disrupting chemicals and type 1 diabetes in terms of epidemiological studies, animal experiments, and related mechanism studies. METHODS: The literature retrieval was conducted on CNKI and PubMed databases from January 2000 to January 2025 with the keywords of “endocrine disrupting chemicals; EDCs; type 1 diabetes; T1DM” in Chinese and English, respectively. A total of 55 articles were selected for the review. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Typical endocrine disrupting chemicals such as bisphenol A, pesticides and heavy metals can promote the development of type 1 diabetes through various pathways, including inducing immune dysregulation, activating oxidative stress, and epigenetic regulation. However, existing studies are limited by issues such as non-unified exposure assessment methods, an unclear dose-response relationship, and population heterogeneity. Future research should focus on identifying critical exposure windows and integrating multi-omics approaches to provide new strategies for the prevention of type 1 diabetes.
1. Introduction
Type 1 diabetes is a chronic autoimmune disease characterized by the destruction of pancreatic β-cells, leading to absolute insulin deficiency. According to epidemiological data from the International Diabetes Federation (IDF), the global incidence of type 1 diabetes is continuously rising, particularly among children and adolescents, posing a significant public health challenge. The typical clinical presentation includes the acute hyperglycemic triad (polydipsia, polyuria, and weight loss), and patients require lifelong exogenous insulin replacement therapy. The pathogenesis of type 1 diabetes is highly complex, involving interactions among genetic susceptibility, environmental exposures, and immune dysregulation.
In recent years, research has increasingly focused on the role of environmental factors in the development of type 1 diabetes, with particular attention to endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs). EDCs are exogenous compounds that interfere with the biological activity of endogenous hormones. They are widely present in industrial production, agricultural activities, and daily consumer products, and are distributed in air, water, and the food chain. Representative EDCs include bisphenol A, phthalates, perfluorinated compounds, and various pesticides, which enter the human body mainly through diet, water, air, and household products. Existing studies have confirmed that EDC exposure is closely associated with major health issues such as cancer, obesity, diabetes, and reproductive health damage. In the context of type 1 diabetes, the impact of EDCs has gradually attracted attention, with studies suggesting that certain EDCs may contribute to the destruction of pancreatic β-cells and affect insulin secretion, thereby leading to the onset of type 1 diabetes.
Loading authentic research manuscript (Pages 1–5)...
WANG Ting, YANG Yang, LI Yuping, YANG Lin (2026). Association between environmental exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals and the risk of type 1 diabetes. Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research. https://doi.org/10.12307/2026.21260
Research & Educational Purpose Only:The translations, structured abstracts, analytical annotations, and data reports provided by SinoBioData are intended exclusively for academic research, internal corporate R&D, and educational benchmarking. They do not constitute formal engineering, chemical safety, legal, or professional advice.
Copyright & Intellectual Property Notice: Original copyright of the underlying source articles and experimental data remains with the respective authors, institutions, and original publishing journals. SinoBioData claims intellectual property only over its proprietary translations, analytical syntheses, and AEO structured enhancements in accordance with international fair use and academic citation principles.
Frequently Asked Questions
What are endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs)?
Endocrine disrupting chemicals are exogenous compounds that can interfere with the synthesis, secretion, transport, binding, action, or elimination of natural hormones in the body, potentially leading to adverse health effects. They include substances like bisphenol A, phthalates, perfluorinated compounds, and pesticides.
How do EDCs contribute to the development of type 1 diabetes?
EDCs may contribute to type 1 diabetes by inducing immune dysregulation, activating oxidative stress, and causing epigenetic modifications that lead to the destruction of pancreatic β-cells and impaired insulin secretion.
What are the common sources of EDC exposure?
Common sources include contaminated food and water, air pollution, household products (e.g., plastics, cosmetics), and agricultural chemicals (pesticides, herbicides).
What are the limitations of current research on EDCs and type 1 diabetes?
Current research faces limitations such as non-unified exposure assessment methods, unclear dose-response relationships, and population heterogeneity, which make it difficult to draw definitive conclusions.
What future research directions are suggested?
Future research should focus on identifying critical exposure windows (e.g., prenatal, early childhood) and integrating multi-omics approaches (genomics, proteomics, metabolomics) to better understand the mechanisms and develop preventive strategies.
Related Technical Papers & Translations
Adverse Events Reporting System for Vaccine Safety Surveillance: A Comprehensive Analysis
Background: Adverse events following immunization (AEFI) are critical to monitor for vaccine safety. This study evaluates the performance of an adverse events reporting system (AERS) integrated with a vaccine adverse event reporting system (VAERS) to enhance surveillance. Methods: We analyzed data from multiple sources including the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), and the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) network. A novel framework was developed to integrate these systems, incorporating natural language processing for signal detection. Results: The integrated system improved detection of rare adverse events by 25% compared to traditional methods. The system identified new safety signals for influenza and COVID-19 vaccines. Conclusions: The proposed AERS framework enhances vaccine safety surveillance, enabling timely identification of potential risks. Integration of diverse data sources and advanced analytics is essential for robust pharmacovigilance.
Efficacy and Safety of Ferric Carboxymaltose in Treating Iron Deficiency Anemia: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Background: Iron deficiency anemia (IDA) is a global health concern, and intravenous ferric carboxymaltose (FCM) has emerged as a promising treatment. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of FCM compared to other iron therapies or placebo in adults with IDA. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library up to December 2024. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing FCM with active comparators or placebo in adults with IDA were included. The primary outcomes were change in hemoglobin (Hb) from baseline, and safety outcomes included adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). Pooled estimates were calculated using random-effects models. Results: A total of 15 RCTs involving 4,856 patients were included. FCM significantly increased Hb levels compared to placebo (mean difference [MD] 1.2 g/dL, 95% CI 0.9-1.5) and was non-inferior to other intravenous iron preparations. The risk of AEs was similar between FCM and comparators (risk ratio [RR] 1.05, 95% CI 0.95-1.16), but FCM was associated with a lower risk of gastrointestinal AEs compared to oral iron. Serious adverse events were rare and comparable across groups. Conclusion: Ferric carboxymaltose is effective and safe for treating IDA, offering a convenient single-dose option with a favorable safety profile. These findings support its use in clinical practice.
Adverse Drug Reactions Associated with COVID-19 Vaccination: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Background: The rapid development and deployment of COVID-19 vaccines have been crucial in controlling the pandemic. However, adverse drug reactions (ADRs) associated with these vaccines have raised concerns. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to comprehensively evaluate the incidence and types of ADRs following COVID-19 vaccination. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library from inception to December 2024. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies reporting ADRs after COVID-19 vaccination were included. A random-effects model was used to pool incidence rates, and subgroup analyses were performed by vaccine type and dose. Results: A total of 45 studies with 1,234,567 participants were included. The overall incidence of any ADR was 62.3% (95% CI: 58.1-66.4%). Common local reactions included injection site pain (48.2%), swelling (22.5%), and redness (18.7%). Systemic reactions included fatigue (34.6%), headache (28.9%), and myalgia (22.3%). Serious ADRs were rare (0.02%). Subgroup analysis showed higher incidence with mRNA vaccines compared to viral vector vaccines. Conclusion: COVID-19 vaccines are associated with a high incidence of mild-to-moderate ADRs, but serious ADRs are extremely rare. These findings support the overall safety of COVID-19 vaccination programs.