| Literature DB >> 28962348 |
Lauren Walker1,2, Laura Baumgartner3, Kevin C Keller1, Julia Ast3, Susanne Trettner3, Nicole I Zur Nieden1,2,3.
Abstract
Many industrial chemicals and their respective by-products need to be comprehensively evaluated for toxicity using reliable and efficient assays. In terms of teratogenicity evaluations, the murine-based embryonic stem cell test (EST) offers a promising solution to screen for multiple tissue endpoints. However, use of a mouse model in the EST can yield only a limited understanding of human development, anatomy, and physiology. Non-human primate or human in vitro models have been suggested to be a pharmacologically and pathophysiologically desirable alternative to murine in vitro models. Here, we comparatively evaluated the sensitivity of embryonic stem cells (ESCs) of a non-human primate to skeletal teratogens with mouse ESCs hypothesizing that inclusion of non-human primate cells in in vitro tests would increase the reliability of safety predictions for humans. First, osteogenic capacity was compared between ESCs from the mouse and a New World monkey, the common marmoset. Then, cells were treated with compounds that have been previously reported to induce bone teratogenicity. Calcification and MTT assays evaluated effects on osteogenesis and cell viability, respectively. Our data indicated that marmoset ESCs responded differently than mouse ESCs in such embryotoxicity screens with no obvious dependency on chemical or compound classes and thus suggest that embryotoxicity screening results could be affected by species-driven response variation. In addition, ESCs derived from rhesus monkey, an Old World monkey, and phylogenetically closer to humans than the marmoset, were observed to respond differently to test compounds than marmoset ESCs. Together these results indicate that there are significant differences in the responses of non-human primate and mouse ESC to embryotoxic agents.Entities:
Keywords: Embryonic stem cell test; Embryotoxicity; Marmoset; Osteogenesis; Rhesus; Sensitivity
Year: 2014 PMID: 28962348 PMCID: PMC5598278 DOI: 10.1016/j.toxrep.2014.11.016
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Toxicol Rep ISSN: 2214-7500
Fig. 1Osteogenic differentiation ability in mouse and marmoset ESCs. (A) Brightfield images and Alizarin Red S staining identifying mineralized calcium. (B) Quantification of calcium deposit in osteogenic cultures determined with Arsenazo III, n = 3, five technical replicates each ± SD. p-value was established with a Student's t-test.
Fig. 2Cytotoxicity and bone mineral matrix assessment in mouse and marmoset osteogenic cultures treated with lithium and sodium chloride. (A) Morphology of cultures. (B) Reduction in survival rate and calcium content is given as percentage of non-compound treated cultures (solvent only). Data is represented as means of six technical replicates of n = 3 ± SD. *p < 0.05, One-Way ANOVA significantly below untreated solvent control.
Fig. 3Cytotoxicity and bone mineral matrix assessment in mouse and marmoset osteogenic cultures treated with lithium and sodium acetate. (A) Photomicrographs of cultures treated with concentrations of compounds as indicated. (B) Cell viability and calcium deposit in treated cultures is graphed as a function of percent solvent control. Data is represented as means of three independent experiments, each including six technical replicates ± SD. *p < 0.05, one-way ANOVA significantly lower than untreated vehicle control.
Fig. 4Cytotoxicity and differentiation inhibition in aluminum treated mouse and marmoset osteogenic ESC cultures. (A) Morphology on day 14 of differentiation. (B) Values measured for cell viability and calcium deposit were charted in percent of the untreated control. Data is represented as means of six technical replicates of n = 3 ± SD. *p < 0.05 below untreated vehicle control, one-way ANOVA.
Half-maximal inhibitory concentrations of osteogenic differentiation (ID50) and cell viability (IC50) for chloride and aluminum compounds determined with mouse and marmoset ESCs.
| Compound | ID50 (differentiation inhibition, Ca2+) [μg/ml] | IC50 (cytotoxicity, MTT) [μg/ml] | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mouse | Marmoset | Mouse | Marmoset | |
| LiCl | n/a | 0.4 ± 0.03 | n/a | 24.6 ± 14.8 |
| NaCl | n/a | 790 ± 256 | n/a | n/a |
| LiAc | 48 ± 11.3 | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| NaAc | 100 ± 21 | 52 ± 9.6 | n/a | n/a |
| AlCl3 | 0.7 ± 0.02 | 80 ± 23.8 | 809 ± 137 | 204 ± 144 |
| AlOH3 | 0.0055 ± 0.0035 | 0.0014 ± 0.0013 | n/a | n/a |
Fig. 5Comparison of marmoset and rhesus ESCs for their sensitivity to skeletal embryotoxicants. (A) Juxtaposition of cell viability and mineralization measurements taken from osteogenic mouse, marmoset and rhesus ESC cultures treated with atRA, 5-FU and PenG. *p < 0.05 below untreated vehicle control, one-way ANOVA. (B) Table contrasting the resulting IC50 and ID50 values taken from the concentration-response curves. (C) Chart depicting the concentration difference between IC50 and ID50 for each species grouped by compound. The left cross on each line indicates the respective ID50 value, the right cross the IC50 value.