An important step in in vitro test system development is the choice of an adequate cell line which depends on the intended application of the assay. In a recent study, Tuuli Karhu and colleagues from Helsinki University compared a set of cell lines for their susceptibility towards eight GATA4 targeting compounds (Karhu et al., 2018[7]). GATA4 is a transcription factor involved in cardiac development (Gupta et al., 2013[6]; Kikuchi et al., 2010[8]; Rysä et al., 2010[15]; Pikkarainen et al., 2004[13]). The goal of the study was to identify which cell line allows the most sensitive cytotoxicity screening of these compounds. The tested cell lines included the myoblast cell line H9c2 established from rat myocardium; primary neonatal rat cardiac fibroblasts; mouse embryonic fibroblasts; mouse embryonic stem cells (mECSs), mouse embryonic stem cell derivatives from day 5 embryoid bodies; induced pluripotent human stem cells (hiPSC); and hiPSC-derived cardiomyocytes. The most susceptible cell lines towards the set of test compounds were hiPSC and mESC, while cardiomyocytes, fibroblasts and H9c2 cells were most resistant (Karhu et al., 2018[7]). Of course screening for the most sensitive cell line does not guarantee that the test cells will be most relevant for the human in vivo situation. However, if one is interested in a cytotoxicity screening system with the highest sensitivity, the recommendation of the authors to further use hiPSC seems reasonable.In recent years, the development of stem cell based test systems has been a major focus of research (Leist et al., 2017[10]; Godoy et al., 2013[3]; Krug et al., 2013[9]). The most frequently applied strategy is to expose stem cells to test compounds, when they differentiate to more mature cell types (Shinde et al., 2017[17]; Pallocca et al., 2016[12]).This approach has been used for developmental neurotoxicity (Waldmann et al., 2014[18]; Meganathan et al., 2015[11]; Weng et al., 2014[19]; Rempel et al., 2015[14]) and for cardiotoxicity (Chaudhari et al., 2016[1][2]; Sampaio et al., 2016[16]) testing. While tests that analyze the influence of compounds on the differentiation process are already successfully applied, it still remains a challenge to generate mature cell types, e.g. hepatocytes that closely resemble the primary cells in an adult organ (Godoy et al., 2016[5], 2018[4]). Although much progress has been achieved in stem cell based test system development, systematic analysis of human in vivo relevance still remains a major challenge.
Authors: Anne K Krug; Raivo Kolde; John A Gaspar; Eugen Rempel; Nina V Balmer; Kesavan Meganathan; Kinga Vojnits; Mathurin Baquié; Tanja Waldmann; Roberto Ensenat-Waser; Smita Jagtap; Richard M Evans; Stephanie Julien; Hedi Peterson; Dimitra Zagoura; Suzanne Kadereit; Daniel Gerhard; Isaia Sotiriadou; Michael Heke; Karthick Natarajan; Margit Henry; Johannes Winkler; Rosemarie Marchan; Luc Stoppini; Sieto Bosgra; Joost Westerhout; Miriam Verwei; Jaak Vilo; Andreas Kortenkamp; Jürgen Hescheler; Ludwig Hothorn; Susanne Bremer; Christoph van Thriel; Karl-Heinz Krause; Jan G Hengstler; Jörg Rahnenführer; Marcel Leist; Agapios Sachinidis Journal: Arch Toxicol Date: 2012-11-21 Impact factor: 5.153
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
Authors: Kazu Kikuchi; Jennifer E Holdway; Andreas A Werdich; Ryan M Anderson; Yi Fang; Gregory F Egnaczyk; Todd Evans; Calum A Macrae; Didier Y R Stainier; Kenneth D Poss Journal: Nature Date: 2010-03-25 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Vikas Gupta; Matthew Gemberling; Ravi Karra; Gabriel E Rosenfeld; Todd Evans; Kenneth D Poss Journal: Curr Biol Date: 2013-06-20 Impact factor: 10.834
Authors: Eugen Rempel; Lisa Hoelting; Tanja Waldmann; Nina V Balmer; Stefan Schildknecht; Marianna Grinberg; John Antony Das Gaspar; Vaibhav Shinde; Regina Stöber; Rosemarie Marchan; Christoph van Thriel; Julia Liebing; Johannes Meisig; Nils Blüthgen; Agapios Sachinidis; Jörg Rahnenführer; Jan G Hengstler; Marcel Leist Journal: Arch Toxicol Date: 2015-08-14 Impact factor: 5.153
Authors: Tanja Waldmann; Eugen Rempel; Nina V Balmer; André König; Raivo Kolde; John Antonydas Gaspar; Margit Henry; Jürgen Hescheler; Agapios Sachinidis; Jörg Rahnenführer; Jan G Hengstler; Marcel Leist Journal: Chem Res Toxicol Date: 2014-01-21 Impact factor: 3.739
Authors: K Meganathan; S Jagtap; S P Srinivasan; V Wagh; J Hescheler; J Hengstler; M Leist; A Sachinidis Journal: Cell Death Dis Date: 2015-05-07 Impact factor: 8.469