| Literature DB >> 34281187 |
Liza Dewyse1, Hendrik Reynaert2, Leo A van Grunsven1.
Abstract
Thirty-five years ago, precision-cut liver slices (PCLS) were described as a promising tool and were expected to become the standard in vitro model to study liver disease as they tick off all characteristics of a good in vitro model. In contrast to most in vitro models, PCLS retain the complex 3D liver structures found in vivo, including cell-cell and cell-matrix interactions, and therefore should constitute the most reliable tool to model and to investigate pathways underlying chronic liver disease in vitro. Nevertheless, the biggest disadvantage of the model is the initiation of a procedure-induced fibrotic response. In this review, we describe the parameters and potential of PCLS cultures and discuss whether the initially described limitations and pitfalls have been overcome. We summarize the latest advances in PCLS research and critically evaluate PCLS use and progress since its invention in 1985.Entities:
Keywords: 3D; PCLS; chronic liver disease; in vitro liver
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34281187 PMCID: PMC8267882 DOI: 10.3390/ijms22137137
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Figure 1Precision cut liver slices: an overview of parameters in numbers. PCLS parameters of 107 research papers reporting on PCLS in the past 10 years were analyzed. The parameters analyzed are: the origin of liver tissue (species), tissue slicer used, slice diameter, slice thickness, and culture duration. n.s. = not specified.
Overview of read-outs used for PCLS analysis. For each enlisted technique the PCLS-related advantages, disadvantages or difficulties, analysis time (including sample preparation), and an indication of the cost per data point are given. Price range is from several euros/sample (€) to thousand euros/sample (€€€€).
| Read-Out | Advantages | Disadvantages/Difficulties | Analysis Time | Cost per Data Point |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Viability and Cytotoxicity | ||||
| LDH leakage | Slice specific follow-up over time | Reader required | ±1 h | € |
| ATP assay | High throughput | End point analysis only | ±1 h | € |
| Morphology | Evaluation of liver structure | Interpretation not always straightforward | ±3 h | € |
| Slice analysis | ||||
| qRT-PCR | Evaluation of multiple m(i)RNA’s | Selective m(i)RNA measurements | ±3 h | €€ |
| Gene expression profiling | Generation of unbiased and complete mRNA profile | Need for bioinformatic skills | Several days | €€€€ |
| Western Blot | Medium sensitivity | Low throughput | 1 day | €€€ |
| Hydroxyproline assay | Quantitative | High tissue input required | 1 day | €€ |
| Immunohistochemical stainings | Can provide more detailed insight into zonation and cell type specific protein expression | Embedding technically challenging | >1 day | €€ |
| Triglyceride | Fatty/metabolic liver disease specific | Total homogenization of tissue required | ±2 h | €€ |
| GSH content | Functional | Affected by fat storage [ | ±1 h | €€ |
| Medium analysis | ||||
| ALT, AST | Straightforward | Concentration of medium might be required/sufficient level of damage required to exceed threshold | Minutes | € |
| ELISA | Quantitative | Low throughput | Hours | €€€ |
| Protein Profiling | Generation of unbiased and complete protein profile | Need for bioinformatic skills | Several days | €€€€ |
Recommended minimal read-outs for disease analysis. For every readout one literature reference is given that illustrates the readout for the indicated PCLS application. * Not part of minimal requirements.
| Liver Disease | Recommended Read-Outs |
|---|---|
| Toxicology | Hepatocyte viability by LDH leakage or ATP assay [ |
| Fibrosis | LDH leakage or ATP assay (hepatocyte viability) [ |
| Fatty liver disease | LDH leakage or ATP assay [ |
| Alcoholic liver disease | LDH leakage or ATP assay [ |
| Inflammation/Immunity | ELISA on medium for inflammatory markers [ |
| Cholestasis | LDH leakage or ATP assay [ |
| Cancer | LDH leakage or ATP assay [ |