INTRODUCTION: Botulinum neurotoxin (BoNT) type A is increasingly used in humans for pharmaceutical and cosmetic purposes. Currently, the standard assay used to determine potency of clinical samples, and the only assay approved by the FDA, is the in vivo mouse bioassay (MBA). However, due to several drawbacks of this assay (relatively large error, high cost, no standardization, requirement of high technical expertise, and use of large numbers of mice), there is an increasing need to replace this assay. A cell-based assay using primary rat spinal cord cells (RSC assay) has been previously reported to sensitively detect purified botulinum neurotoxin type A, and requires all biological properties of the toxin for detection. METHODS: This study presents data on quantitative detection of potency of purified BoNT/A by a cell-based assay, using primary rat spinal cord cells (RSC assay). The sensitivity and error rate of the RSC assay was directly compared to the currently used mouse bioassay by repeated testing of the same purified BoNT/A sample by both assays. In addition, the potency of several samples of purified BoNT/A of unknown activity was determined in parallel by RSC assay and MBA. RESULTS: The results indicate sensitivity of the RSC assay similar to the mouse bioassay, high reproducibility, and a lower error rate than the mouse bioassay. Direct comparison of potency determination of several purified BoNT/A samples by RSC assay and MBA resulted in very similar values, indicating very good correlation. DISCUSSION: These data support the use of a cell-based assay for potency determination of purified BoNT/A as an alternative to the mouse bioassay. 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
INTRODUCTION: Botulinum neurotoxin (BoNT) type A is increasingly used in humans for pharmaceutical and cosmetic purposes. Currently, the standard assay used to determine potency of clinical samples, and the only assay approved by the FDA, is the in vivo mouse bioassay (MBA). However, due to several drawbacks of this assay (relatively large error, high cost, no standardization, requirement of high technical expertise, and use of large numbers of mice), there is an increasing need to replace this assay. A cell-based assay using primary rat spinal cord cells (RSC assay) has been previously reported to sensitively detect purified botulinum neurotoxin type A, and requires all biological properties of the toxin for detection. METHODS: This study presents data on quantitative detection of potency of purified BoNT/A by a cell-based assay, using primary rat spinal cord cells (RSC assay). The sensitivity and error rate of the RSC assay was directly compared to the currently used mouse bioassay by repeated testing of the same purified BoNT/A sample by both assays. In addition, the potency of several samples of purified BoNT/A of unknown activity was determined in parallel by RSC assay and MBA. RESULTS: The results indicate sensitivity of the RSC assay similar to the mouse bioassay, high reproducibility, and a lower error rate than the mouse bioassay. Direct comparison of potency determination of several purified BoNT/A samples by RSC assay and MBA resulted in very similar values, indicating very good correlation. DISCUSSION: These data support the use of a cell-based assay for potency determination of purified BoNT/A as an alternative to the mouse bioassay. 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: Peter Silhár; Lisa M Eubanks; Hajime Seki; Sabine Pellett; Sacha Javor; William H Tepp; Eric A Johnson; Kim D Janda Journal: J Med Chem Date: 2013-10-15 Impact factor: 7.446
Authors: Amanda Przedpelski; William H Tepp; Madison Zuverink; Eric A Johnson; Sabine Pellet; Joseph T Barbieri Journal: Vaccine Date: 2018-01-04 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Susan E Maslanka; Carolina Lúquez; Janet K Dykes; William H Tepp; Christina L Pier; Sabine Pellett; Brian H Raphael; Suzanne R Kalb; John R Barr; Agam Rao; Eric A Johnson Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2015-06-10 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Erkan Kiris; Krishna P Kota; James C Burnett; Veronica Soloveva; Christopher D Kane; Sina Bavari Journal: Expert Rev Mol Diagn Date: 2014-01-23 Impact factor: 5.225
Authors: David M White; Sabine Pellett; Mark A Jensen; William H Tepp; Eric A Johnson; Barry G W Arnason Journal: Infect Immun Date: 2011-05-16 Impact factor: 3.441
Authors: Christina L Pier; Chen Chen; William H Tepp; Guangyun Lin; Kim D Janda; Joseph T Barbieri; Sabine Pellett; Eric A Johnson Journal: FEBS Lett Date: 2010-11-30 Impact factor: 4.124
Authors: Hajime Seki; Sabine Pellett; Peter Silhár; G Neil Stowe; Beatriz Blanco; Matthew A Lardy; Eric A Johnson; Kim D Janda Journal: Bioorg Med Chem Date: 2013-12-08 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Regina C M Whitemarsh; Christina L Pier; William H Tepp; Sabine Pellett; Eric A Johnson Journal: Biochem Biophys Res Commun Date: 2012-09-20 Impact factor: 3.575