Tafadzwa Chihanga1, Sarah M Hausmann1, Shuisong Ni1, Michael A Kennedy2. 1. Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Miami University, Oxford, OH, 45056, USA. 2. Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Miami University, Oxford, OH, 45056, USA. kennedm4@miamioh.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Comparative metabolic profiling of different human cancer cell lines can reveal metabolic pathways up-regulated or down-regulated in each cell line, potentially providing insight into distinct metabolism taking place in different types of cancer cells. It is noteworthy, however, that human cell lines available from public repositories are deposited with recommended media for optimal growth, and if cell lines to be compared are cultured on different growth media, this introduces a potentially serious confounding variable in metabolic profiling studies designed to identify intrinsic metabolic pathways active in each cell line. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to determine if the culture media used to grow human cell lines had a significant impact on the measured metabolic profiles. METHODS: NMR-based metabolic profiles of hydrophilic extracts of three human pancreatic cancer cell lines, AsPC-1, MiaPaCa-2 and Panc-1, were compared after culture on Dulbecco's Modified Eagle Medium (DMEM) or Roswell Park Memorial Institute (RPMI-1640) medium. RESULTS: Comparisons of the same cell lines cultured on different media revealed that the concentrations of many metabolites depended strongly on the choice of culture media. Analyses of different cell lines grown on the same media revealed insight into their metabolic differences. CONCLUSION: The choice of culture media can significantly impact metabolic profiles of human cell lines and should be considered an important variable when designing metabolic profiling studies. Also, the metabolic differences of cells cultured on media recommended for optimal growth in comparison to a second growth medium can reveal critical insight into metabolic pathways active in each cell line.
INTRODUCTION: Comparative metabolic profiling of different humancancer cell lines can reveal metabolic pathways up-regulated or down-regulated in each cell line, potentially providing insight into distinct metabolism taking place in different types of cancer cells. It is noteworthy, however, that human cell lines available from public repositories are deposited with recommended media for optimal growth, and if cell lines to be compared are cultured on different growth media, this introduces a potentially serious confounding variable in metabolic profiling studies designed to identify intrinsic metabolic pathways active in each cell line. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to determine if the culture media used to grow human cell lines had a significant impact on the measured metabolic profiles. METHODS: NMR-based metabolic profiles of hydrophilic extracts of three humanpancreatic cancer cell lines, AsPC-1, MiaPaCa-2 and Panc-1, were compared after culture on Dulbecco's Modified Eagle Medium (DMEM) or Roswell Park Memorial Institute (RPMI-1640) medium. RESULTS: Comparisons of the same cell lines cultured on different media revealed that the concentrations of many metabolites depended strongly on the choice of culture media. Analyses of different cell lines grown on the same media revealed insight into their metabolic differences. CONCLUSION: The choice of culture media can significantly impact metabolic profiles of human cell lines and should be considered an important variable when designing metabolic profiling studies. Also, the metabolic differences of cells cultured on media recommended for optimal growth in comparison to a second growth medium can reveal critical insight into metabolic pathways active in each cell line.
Authors: Emily L Deer; Jessica González-Hernández; Jill D Coursen; Jill E Shea; Josephat Ngatia; Courtney L Scaife; Matthew A Firpo; Sean J Mulvihill Journal: Pancreas Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 3.327
Authors: Pier Morin; Dean Ferguson; Luc M LeBlanc; Martin J G Hébert; Aurélie F Paré; Jacques Jean-François; Marc E Surette; Mohamed Touaibia; Miroslava Cuperlovic-Culf Journal: J Proteome Res Date: 2013-04-22 Impact factor: 4.466
Authors: Tafadzwa Chihanga; Qing Ma; Jenna D Nicholson; Hannah N Ruby; Richard E Edelmann; Prasad Devarajan; Michael A Kennedy Journal: Am J Physiol Renal Physiol Date: 2017-10-04
Authors: Maria D Cao; Santosh Lamichhane; Steinar Lundgren; Anna Bofin; Hans Fjøsne; Guro F Giskeødegård; Tone F Bathen Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2014-12-12 Impact factor: 4.430