| Literature DB >> 34068678 |
Andrés Tabernilla1, Bruna Dos Santos Rodrigues1, Alanah Pieters1, Anne Caufriez1, Kaat Leroy1, Raf Van Campenhout1, Axelle Cooreman1, Ana Rita Gomes1, Emma Arnesdotter1, Eva Gijbels1, Mathieu Vinken1.
Abstract
The liver is among the most frequently targeted organs by noxious chemicals of diverse nature. Liver toxicity testing using laboratory animals not only raises serious ethical questions, but is also rather poorly predictive of human safety towards chemicals. Increasing attention is, therefore, being paid to the development of non-animal and human-based testing schemes, which rely to a great extent on in vitro methodology. The present paper proposes a rationalized tiered in vitro testing strategy to detect liver toxicity triggered by chemicals, in which the first tier is focused on assessing general cytotoxicity, while the second tier is aimed at identifying liver-specific toxicity as such. A state-of-the-art overview is provided of the most commonly used in vitro assays that can be used in both tiers. Advantages and disadvantages of each assay as well as overall practical considerations are discussed.Entities:
Keywords: cytotoxicity; in vitro; liver; liver-specific toxicity; mechanisms
Year: 2021 PMID: 34068678 PMCID: PMC8126138 DOI: 10.3390/ijms22095038
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Advantages and limitations of in vitro assays to study general cytotoxicity.
| Assay | Advantages | Limitations | References | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Membrane integrity | LDH leakage |
Sensitivity, agility and low cost. Multiple time points analysis in a single test run. High stability of the LDH enzyme. |
Interference of cell culture components/test chemical with the LDH stability. | [ |
| Calcein-AM |
Simplicity, safety and low cost. Suitability for HTP strategies. Possibility of combining with other read-outs in a single test run. |
Spontaneous leakage of the dye. Stability of the signal. Limited dye uptake in certain cell types. Potential signal overlap between the calcein and the test chemical. | [ | |
| Protease activity |
Multiple time points analysis in a single test run. Possibility of combining with other read-outs in a single test run. Suitability for HTP strategies. |
Interference of cell culture components with the protease activity. | [ | |
| Trypan blue |
Agility, simplicity and low cost. |
Intra-operator/inter-operator variability. Dichotomic nature of the results. Sensitivity can be compromised by the concentrations and exposure time to the dye. | [ | |
| Mitochondrial functionality | Tetrazolium salt |
Simplicity and reproducibility. Low cost. |
Variable results depending on the cell culture stage/cell type. Cell culture components/test chemical can catalyse MTT reduction. Potential cytotoxicity of the reagents. Lytic endpoint methodology. | [ |
| Resazurin reduction assay |
Agility, sensitivity and simplicity. Possibility of combining with other read-outs in a single test run. Suitability for HTP strategies. Multiple time points analysis in a single test run. |
Potential cytotoxicity of the reagents. Optimisation for each cell type. Interference of cell culture components with the colorimetric signal. | [ | |
| ATP content |
Agility, sensitivity and reproducibility. Stability of the signal. Low background noise. Detection of early cytotoxicity. Applicable to evaluate 3D cultures. |
Test chemical and/or cell culture conditions can alter luciferase activity. Lytic endpoint methodology. Levels of ATP can be compromise by ATPases present in the media. Expensive. | [ | |
| Mitochondrial |
Reliable indicator of mitochondrial functionality. Multiplatform evaluation (flow cytometer, fluorescence microscope or plate reader). |
Low sensitivity and non-specificity of certain probes. Potential cytotoxicity of the probes. Requires the use of pharmacological controls and/or complementary probes. | [ | |
| Oxidative stress | DCFH2-DA |
Agility. Multiplatform evaluation (flow cytometer, fluorescence microscope or plate reader). |
Low sensitivity and non-specificity of certain probes. Artificial amplification of the signal. Spontaneous leakage of certain probes. | [ |
| DHE/Mito-HE fluorescence probe-based assays |
Agility. Multiplatform evaluation (flow cytometer, fluorescence microscope or plate reader). Evaluation of mitochondrial ROS levels. |
Low sensitivity and non-specificity of the probe. Optimisation of the probe concentration. | [ | |
| Lipid peroxidation: MDA/TBARS assay |
Agility, simplicity, low cost. |
Low specificity, artificial amplification of the signal. Relatively low detection limit. | [ | |
| Enzymatic |
Specificity. Quantitative and functional nature of the results. |
Lytic endpoint methodology. No information about cellular localisation. Requires the use of control conditions for isoform signatures. | [ | |
| Cell death | Annexin V |
Sensitivity. Multiplatform evaluation (flow cytometer, fluorescence microscope). Possibility of combining with other read-outs in a single test run. Application in tissues and whole-body level. |
Background signal. Requirement for calcium ions in mM concentrations. | [ |
| PI dye uptake |
Versatility and low cost. Multiplatform evaluation (flow cytometer, fluorescence microscope). Possibility of combining with other read-outs in a single test run. Suitability for HTP strategies. |
Optimisation of the dye concentration, incubation time and washing steps. Potentially mutagenic effect of the dye. | [ | |
| Caspase activity |
Agility, reproducibility and sensitivity. Multiplatform evaluation (flow and laser scanning cytometer). Possibility of combining with other read-outs in a single test run. |
Non-specific for a particular caspase. Lytic endpoint methodology. | [ | |
| TUNEL assay |
Agility, sensitivity and simplicity. Detection of early stages of apoptosis. Multiplatform evaluation (light and fluorescence microscope, flow cytometer). Possibility of combining with other read-outs in a single test run. |
Expensive. Time-consuming. Subjected to false positive results. | [ | |
| Miscellaneous | Neutral red uptake |
Versatility, sensitivity and low cost. Stability of the signal. Suitability for HTP strategies. |
Optimisation of the dye concentration and incubation time. Impact of the test chemical on the dye activity. Lytic endpoint methodology. | [ |
ATP: adenosine triphosphate; Calcein-AM: calcein-acetoxymethyl; DCFH2-DA: 2′,7′-dichlorodihydrofluorescein diacetate; DHE: dihydroethidium; HTP: high-throughput; LDH: lactate dehydrogenase; MDA: malondialdehyde; MTT: 5-(3-carboxymethoxyphenyl)-2-(4,5-dimethylthiazoly)-3-(4-sulfophenyl)-tetrazolium; PI: propidium iodide; ROS: reactive oxygen species; TBARS: thiobarbituric acid reactive substance; TUNEL: terminal deoxynUcleotidyl transferase dUTP Nick End Labeling.
Advantages and limitations of in vitro assays to study liver-specific toxicity.
| Assay | Advantages | Limitations | References | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cholestasis | Transporter |
Tauro-nor-THCA-24-DBD: sensitivity for BSEP inhibition assessment. CLF: agility and low cost. CDFDA: robustness. TCA: sensitivity for NTCP uptake activity. Estradiol-17β-glucuronide and CCK8: selectivity of the probe substrates for OATP1B1 and OATP1B3 transporters. |
Tauro-nor-THCA-24-DBD: uptake of substrate by NCTP must be considered for interpretation of results. CLF: prone to artefacts and test compound interference. CDFDA: test compound interference is possible. TCA: safety concerns when using radiolabelled-TCA. Estradiol-17β-glucuronide and CCK8: substrate selectivity depends on concentration. | [ |
| Drug-induced |
Early assessment and prediction of DIC risk. Determination of DICI. Mechanistic information on cholestatic compounds. |
Not suitable for long-term toxicity analysis. | [ | |
| Steatosis | Oil Red O |
Low cost and simplicity. Potential quantification using computed-based software. Multiplatform evaluation (light and fluorescence microscope, plate reader). Possibility of combining with other read-outs in a single test run. |
Specificity. Stability of the signal. Preparation of the solutions ex tempore. Not suitable for combining with alcohol-based fixatives and paraffin-embedded procedures. | [ |
| Nile Red |
Simplicity, reproducibility and agility. Low background. Detection of specific lipids (solvatochromic property). Application on fixed and live cells. Multiplatform evaluation (fluorescence microscope, flow cytometer and plate reader). Preparation of the dye in aqueous medium. Suitability for HTP strategies. |
Specificity. Not suitable for multicolour imaging. | [ | |
| BODIPY 493/503 |
Agility. Application on fixed and live cells. Multiplatform evaluation (fluorescence microscope, flow cytometer). Possibility of combining with other read-outs in a single test run. Evaluation of both live and fixed cells. Stability of the dye. |
Optimisation of the filters. Background signal. Intensity and stability of the signal. | [ | |
| Absolute lipid |
Specificity and sensibility. Quantitative nature of the results. Commercial kits available. Suitability for HTP strategies. |
Time-consuming multi-step procedure. Use of harmful reagents. No information about cellular localisation. | [ | |
| FA oxidation |
Direct and indirect quantification of FAO. Multiplatform evaluation (fluorescence and radiometric devices). Commercial kits available. |
Time-consuming method multi-step procedure. Sensitivity. Use of radiolabelled compounds. | [ | |
| FA efflux |
Direct and indirect quantification of FA efflux. Multiplatform evaluation (flow cytometer and spectro-radiometric devices). Commercial kits available. |
Use of radiolabelled compounds. Stability of the signal (fluorescence methods). Expensive. | [ | |
| Fibrosis | Sirius Red |
Agility, sensibility, reproducibility, simplicity and low cost. Multiplatform evaluation (light, fluorescence and polarized microscope). Stability of the signal. Possibility of combining with other read-outs in a single test run. Suitability for HTP strategies. |
Specificity. Special equipment and qualified personnel. | [ |
| Hydroxyproline |
Sensitivity. |
Time-consuming method multi-step procedure. Specificity. Lytic endpoint methodology. No information about cellular localisation. Use of toxic and expensive reagents. | [ | |
| Collagen |
Sensitivity and specificity. Discrimination of specific collagen types. |
Expensive. Potential cross-reactivity of the antibodies. Lack of antibodies against minor collagen types. Not allows simultaneous detection of several collagen types. | [ | |
| MMP and TIMP quantification: |
Detection of specific MMP and TIMP. Low cost. Potential application in real-time procedures. |
Zymography: time-consuming multi-step procedure. Reverse zymography: sensitivity. | [ | |
| HSC activation |
Contraction assay: functional assay. α-SMA quantification: reliable marker of activated HSC. |
Contraction assay: uncertain correlation between HSC contractile force in culture and in vivo. α-SMA quantification: lack of standardised interpretation. | [ |
BSEP: bile salt export pump; BODIPY 493/503: 4,4-difluoro-1,3,5,7,8-pentamethyl-4-bora-3a,4a-diaza-s-indacene 495/503; CCK8: cholecystokinin-octapeptide; CDFDA: 5(6)-carboxy-2′,7′-dichlorofluorescein diacetate; CLF: cholyl-lysyl-fluorescein; DIC: drug-induced cholestasis; DICI: drug-induced cholestatic index; FA: fatty acid; FAO: fatty acid oxidation; HSC: hepatic stellate cell; HTP: high-throughput; MMPs: matrix metalloproteinases; NTCP: sodium taurocholate co-transporting polypeptide; OATP: organic anion transporting polypeptide; Tauro-nor-THCA-24-DBD: tauro-nor-N-(24-[7-(4-N,N-dimethylaminosulfonyl-2,1,3-benzoxadiazole)]-amino-3α,7α,12α-trihydroxy-27-nor-5β-cholestan-26-oyl)-2′-aminoethanesulfonate; TCA: taurocholate; TIMPs: tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases; α-SMA: alpha-smooth muscle actin.
Figure 1Scheme representing the structure of the liver, highlighting the cellular architecture of its functional unit, the acinus.
Figure 2Scheme representing the mechanisms of general cytotoxicity and corresponding in vitro assays. ATP: adenosine triphosphate; Calcein-AM: calcein-acetoxymethyl; DCFH2-DA: 2′,7′-dichlorodihydrofluorescein diacetate; DHE: dihydroethidium; LDH: lactate dehydrogenase; MDA: malondialdehyde; PI: propidium iodide; TBARS: thiobarbituric acid reactive substance; TUNEL: terminal deoxynUcleotidyl transferase dUTP Nick End Labeling.
Figure 3Schematic representation of the 3 main types of liver-specific toxicity and corresponding in vitro assays. BA: bile acid; BODIPY 493/503: 4,4-difluoro-1,3,5,7,8-pentamethyl-4-bora-3a,4a-diaza-s-indacene 495/503; CCK8: cholecystokinin-octapeptide; CDFDA: 5(6)-carboxy-2′,7′-dichlorofluorescein diacetate; CLF: cholyl-lysyl-fluorescein; FA: fatty acid; MMPs: matrix metalloproteinases; HSC: hepatic stellate cell; Tauro-nor-THCA-24-DBD: tauro-nor-N-(24-[7-(4-N,N-dimethylaminosulfonyl-2,1,3-benzoxadiazole)]-amino-3α,7α,12α-trihydroxy-27-nor-5β-cholestan-26-oyl)-2′-aminoethanesulfonate; TCA: taurocholate; TIMPs: tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases; α-SMA: alpha-smooth muscle actin.
Figure 4Diagram summarizing critical parameters for in vitro liver toxicity testing.