Literature DB >> 17336492

A sandwich-cultured rat hepatocyte system with increased metabolic competence evaluated by gene expression profiling.

A S Kienhuis1, H M Wortelboer, W J Maas, M van Herwijnen, J C S Kleinjans, J H M van Delft, R H Stierum.   

Abstract

A rapid decline of cytochrome P450 (CYP450) enzyme activities remains a drawback of rat hepatocyte-based in vitro cultures. Consequently, judgment of the toxic potential of compounds that need bioactivation by CYP450s may not be adequate using this model. In the present study, an improved hepatocyte-based in vitro system was developed with special focus on metabolic competence. Therefore, a mixture of CYP450 inducers, phenobarbital, dexamethasone and beta-naphthoflavone, was added to culture medium of sandwich-cultured rat hepatocytes. The resulting modified model was evaluated by comparing its genome-wide expression profiles with liver and a standard model without the inducer mixture. Metabolic capacity for CYP450 enzymes showed that the modified model resembled more closely the in vivo situation. Gene expression results revealed large differences between in vivo and both in vitro models. The slight differences between the two sandwich models were predominantly represented by gene expression changes in CYP450s. Importantly, in the modified model, expression ratios of the phase I and the majority of phase II genes more closely resembled liver in vivo. The CYP450 enzyme activities corresponded with gene expression data. In conclusion, for toxicological applications using sandwich-cultured hepatocytes, the modified model may be preferred.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17336492     DOI: 10.1016/j.tiv.2007.01.010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Toxicol In Vitro        ISSN: 0887-2333            Impact factor:   3.500


  9 in total

1.  Preparation and incubation of precision-cut liver and intestinal slices for application in drug metabolism and toxicity studies.

Authors:  Inge A M de Graaf; Peter Olinga; Marina H de Jager; Marjolijn T Merema; Ruben de Kanter; Esther G van de Kerkhof; Geny M M Groothuis
Journal:  Nat Protoc       Date:  2010-08-19       Impact factor: 13.491

Review 2.  Sandwich-cultured hepatocytes: an in vitro model to evaluate hepatobiliary transporter-based drug interactions and hepatotoxicity.

Authors:  Brandon Swift; Nathan D Pfeifer; Kim L R Brouwer
Journal:  Drug Metab Rev       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 4.518

3.  Predicting the future: opportunities and challenges for the chemical industry to apply 21st-century toxicity testing.

Authors:  Raja S Settivari; Nicholas Ball; Lynea Murphy; Reza Rasoulpour; Darrell R Boverhof; Edward W Carney
Journal:  J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 1.232

4.  Mechanisms underlying differences in systemic exposure of structurally similar active metabolites: comparison of two preclinical hepatic models.

Authors:  Grace Zhixia Yan; Kim L R Brouwer; Gary M Pollack; Michael Zhuo Wang; Richard R Tidwell; James E Hall; Mary F Paine
Journal:  J Pharmacol Exp Ther       Date:  2011-02-14       Impact factor: 4.030

5.  Inhibitive effect of cremophor RH40 or tween 80-based self-microemulsiflying drug delivery system on cytochrome P450 3A enzymes in murine hepatocytes.

Authors:  Zichao Rao; Luqin Si; Yanbin Guan; Hongping Pan; Jun Qiu; Gao Li
Journal:  J Huazhong Univ Sci Technolog Med Sci       Date:  2010-11-10

Review 6.  Recent advances in 2D and 3D in vitro systems using primary hepatocytes, alternative hepatocyte sources and non-parenchymal liver cells and their use in investigating mechanisms of hepatotoxicity, cell signaling and ADME.

Authors:  Patricio Godoy; Nicola J Hewitt; Ute Albrecht; Melvin E Andersen; Nariman Ansari; Sudin Bhattacharya; Johannes Georg Bode; Jennifer Bolleyn; Christoph Borner; Jan Böttger; Albert Braeuning; Robert A Budinsky; Britta Burkhardt; Neil R Cameron; Giovanni Camussi; Chong-Su Cho; Yun-Jaie Choi; J Craig Rowlands; Uta Dahmen; Georg Damm; Olaf Dirsch; María Teresa Donato; Jian Dong; Steven Dooley; Dirk Drasdo; Rowena Eakins; Karine Sá Ferreira; Valentina Fonsato; Joanna Fraczek; Rolf Gebhardt; Andrew Gibson; Matthias Glanemann; Chris E P Goldring; María José Gómez-Lechón; Geny M M Groothuis; Lena Gustavsson; Christelle Guyot; David Hallifax; Seddik Hammad; Adam Hayward; Dieter Häussinger; Claus Hellerbrand; Philip Hewitt; Stefan Hoehme; Hermann-Georg Holzhütter; J Brian Houston; Jens Hrach; Kiyomi Ito; Hartmut Jaeschke; Verena Keitel; Jens M Kelm; B Kevin Park; Claus Kordes; Gerd A Kullak-Ublick; Edward L LeCluyse; Peng Lu; Jennifer Luebke-Wheeler; Anna Lutz; Daniel J Maltman; Madlen Matz-Soja; Patrick McMullen; Irmgard Merfort; Simon Messner; Christoph Meyer; Jessica Mwinyi; Dean J Naisbitt; Andreas K Nussler; Peter Olinga; Francesco Pampaloni; Jingbo Pi; Linda Pluta; Stefan A Przyborski; Anup Ramachandran; Vera Rogiers; Cliff Rowe; Celine Schelcher; Kathrin Schmich; Michael Schwarz; Bijay Singh; Ernst H K Stelzer; Bruno Stieger; Regina Stöber; Yuichi Sugiyama; Ciro Tetta; Wolfgang E Thasler; Tamara Vanhaecke; Mathieu Vinken; Thomas S Weiss; Agata Widera; Courtney G Woods; Jinghai James Xu; Kathy M Yarborough; Jan G Hengstler
Journal:  Arch Toxicol       Date:  2013-08-23       Impact factor: 5.153

Review 7.  Design and application of microfluidic systems for in vitro pharmacokinetic evaluation of drug candidates.

Authors:  T J Maguire; E Novik; P Chao; J Barminko; Y Nahmias; M L Yarmush; K-C Cheng
Journal:  Curr Drug Metab       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 3.731

8.  Impact of chronic unpredicted mild stress-induced depression on repaglinide fate via glucocorticoid signaling pathway.

Authors:  Hongyan Wei; Ting Zhou; Boyu Tan; Lei Zhang; Mingming Li; Zhijun Xiao; Feng Xu
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2017-07-04

Review 9.  Building a tiered approach to in vitro predictive toxicity screening: a focus on assays with in vivo relevance.

Authors:  James M McKim
Journal:  Comb Chem High Throughput Screen       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 1.339

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.