| Literature DB >> 26569236 |
Adyary Fallarero1, Ana E Batista-González2, Anna K Hiltunen3, Jaana Liimatainen4, Maarit Karonen5, Pia M Vuorela6.
Abstract
Natural products are complex matrices of compounds that are prone to interfere with the label-dependent methods that are typically used for cytotoxicity screenings. Here, we developed a label-free Electric Cell-substrate Impedance Sensing (ECIS)-based cytotoxicity assay that can be applied in the assessment of the cytotoxicity of natural extracts. The conditions to measure the impedance using ECIS were first optimized in mice immortalized hypothalamic neurons GT1-7 cells. The performance of four natural extracts when tested using three conventional cytotoxicity assays in GT1-7 cells, was studied. Betula pendula (silver birch tree) was found to interfere with all of the cytotoxicity assays in which labels were applied. The silver birch extract was also proven to be cytotoxic and, thus, served as a proof-of-concept for the use of ECIS. The extract was fractionated and the ECIS method permitted the distinction of specific kinetic patterns of cytotoxicity on the fractions as well as the extract's pure constituents. This study offers evidence that ECIS is an excellent tool for real-time monitoring of the cytotoxicity of complex extracts that are difficult to work with using conventional (label-based) assays. Altogether, it offers a very suitable cytotoxicity-screening assay making the work with natural products less challenging within the drug discovery workflow.Entities:
Keywords: ECIS; cytotoxicity; impedance; label-free; natural extracts; screening
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26569236 PMCID: PMC4661872 DOI: 10.3390/ijms161126014
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Summary of the statistical parameters: screening window coefficient (Z′), signal-to-noise (S/N) and signal-to-background (S/B), measured during the optimization assays conducted in uncoated 8W1E and 8W10E electrodes.
| Cell Concentration (Cells/mL) × 105 | Time (h) | 8W10E | 8W1E | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S/N | S/B | S/N | S/B | ||||
| 4 | 24 | 0.53 | 6.88 | 1.88 | 0.92 | 44.13 | 4.09 |
| 48 | 0.56 | 7.36 | 2.52 | 0.89 | 38.00 | 3.92 | |
| 2 | 24 | 0.11 | 2.81 | 1.86 | 0.63 | 10.11 | 3.24 |
| 48 | 0.16 | 3.74 | 2.17 | 0.26 | 4.46 | 3.56 | |
| 1 | 24 | 0.17 | 4.05 | 1.34 | 0.42 | 2.38 | 2.23 |
| 48 | 0.23 | 4.36 | 1.53 | 0.04 | 3.48 | 2.93 | |
Figure 1(a) Impedance signal recorded in untreated cells (4 × 105 cells/mL) added to uncoated electrodes for up to 48 h, or in cells exposed to menadione (25 µM) after 24 h of initiating the experiment or in culture media. The red arrow indicates the time point where menadione was added; and (b) transmitted light microscopy pictures taken of the untreated (up) and menadione-treated cells (bottom) after 48 h. Scale bar represents 0.25 mm, for both images.
Optical readouts caused by birch (NP1), milk thistle (NP2), olive (NP3), and propolis (NP4) extracts using three cell viability assays, in the absence of cells. Values are shown as mean ± SD (n = 3).
| Sample (Extract) | Resazurin Reduction Assay (RFU) | ATP Luminometric Assay (RLU) | LIVE/DEAD Fluorescence Assay (RFU) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Calcein | EthD-1 | |||
| Probe control | 83.8 ± 4.9 | 137.4 ± 4.6 | 6.671 ± 0.074 | 0.121 ± 0.017 |
| NP1 | 176.6 ± 6.6 *** | 1758.9 ± 65.3 *** | 10.200 ± 0.092 *** | 0.433 ± 0.013 *** |
| NP2 | 106.8 ± 2.9 | 119.4 ± 1.6 | 6.581 ± 0.112 | 0.151 ± 0.009 |
| NP3 | 102.7 ± 28.8 | 122.0 ± 4.8 | 7.131 ± 0.134 * | 0.143 ± 0.008 |
| NP4 | 93.8 ± 6.6 | 122.0 ± 4.8 | 6.754 ± 0.102 | 0.190 ± 0.013 * |
*** p < 0.0001, when compared to probe control samples; * p < 0.05, when compared to probe control samples; RFU and RLU indicate relative fluorescence units and relative light units, respectively; ATP corresponds to adenosine triphosphate and EthD-1 corresponds to ethidium homodimer-1; NP1-4 are defined in the title of this table.
Figure 2Impedance changes recorded with ECIS in cells treated with (a) birch (NP1), milk thistle (NP2), olive (NP3), and propolis (NP4) extracts (all at a concentration of 0.5 mg/mL); (b) birch extract, NP1 (at a concentration range of 50–200 μg/mL); (c) fractions F1, F2, F3 and F4 from NP1 (50 µg/mL) (see Experimental Section); and (d) pure compounds present on the fractions F1, F2 and F3 of NP1 at fraction concentrations of 50 µg/mL (platyphylloside 65.6 µM; rhododendrin 26.3 µM; (+)-catechin 7-O-β-d-xylopyranoside 24.7 µM; and (+)-catechin 35.9 µM). The red arrows indicate the time points where the samples were added for cytotoxicity assessments. Abbreviations used in the figure and legend: (+)-Cat corresponds to (+)-catechin; (+)-Cat-xylo corresponds to (+)-catechin 7-O-β-d-xylopyranoside; Rho corresponds to rhododendrin and Platy corresponds to platyphylloside.
Chemical compositions of the birch extract (NP1) and its fractions (coded F1–F4). The results are expressed as mg of compound/mg dry fraction or extract ± SD (n = 6 for procyanidins and n = 3 for other compounds).
| Sample (Extract or Fraction) | (+)-Catechin | Rhododendrin | Platyphylloside | Procyanidins |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (+)-Catechin 7- | ||||
| Crude extract | 0.0581 ± 0.0018 | 0.0794 ± 0.0010 | 0.210 ± 0.010 | 0.28 ± 0.05 |
| F1 | 0.00446 ± 0.00010 | 0.169 ± 0.007 | 0.142 ± 0.005 | 0.17 ± 0.03 |
| F2 | 0.195 ± 0.006 | – | 0.533 ± 0.018 | 0.014 ± 0.007 |
| F3 | 0.050 ± 0.004 | – | – | 0.51 ± 0.07 |
| F4 | – | – | – | 1.00 ± 0.08 |