An Evaluation of the In Vitro Cytotoxicities of 50 Chemicals by using an Electrical Current Exclusion Method versus the Neutral Red Uptake and MTT Assays
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online December, 2005
An Evaluation of the In Vitro Cytotoxicities of 50 Chemicals by using an Electrical Current Exclusion Method versus the Neutral Red Uptake and MTT Assays
According to the 2001 National Institutes of Health guidance document on using in vitro data to estimate in vivo starting doses for acute toxicity, the performance of the electrical current exclusion method (ECE) was studied for its suitability as an in vitro cytotoxicity test. In a comparative study, two established in vitro assays based on the quantification of metabolic processes necessary for cell proliferation or organelle integrity (the MTT/WST-8 [WST-8] assay and the neutral red uptake [NRU] assay), and two cytoplasm membrane integrity assays (the trypan blue exclusion [TB] and ECE methods), were performed. IC50 values were evaluated for 50 chemicals ranging from low to high toxicity, 46 of which are listed in Halle's Registry of Cytotoxicity (RC). A high correlation was found between the IC50 values obtained in this study and the IC50 data published in the RC. The assay sensitivity was highest for the ECE method, and decreased from the WST-8 assay to the NRU assay to the TB assay. The consistent results of the ECE method are based on technical standardisation, high counting rate, and the ability to combine cell viability and cell volume analysis for detection of the first signs of cell necrosis and damage of the cytoplasmic membrane caused by cytotoxic agents.
HalleW. (1998). Toxizitätsprüfungen in Zellkulturen für eine Vorhersage der akuten Toxizität (LD50) zur Einsparung von Tierversuchen.94 pp. Schriften des Forschungszentrum Jülich, Life Sciences, Vol. 1, 93 pp. Jülich, Germany: Forschungszentrum. Now also available in English: ATLA31, 89–198, 2003.
2.
HalleW., & GöresE. (1988). Register der Zytotoxizität (IC50) in der Zellkultur und Möglichkeiten zur Abschätzung der akuten Toxizität (LD50). In Beiträge zur Wirkstoffforschung (ed. OehmeP., LöweH., & GöresE.), Vol. 32, 108 pp. Berlin, Germany: Institut für Wirkstoffforschung.
3.
BondessonI., EkwallB., HellbergS., RomertL., StenbergK., & WalumE. (1989). MEIC — A new international multicenter study to evaluate the relevance to human toxicity data on in vitro cytotoxicity tests. Cell Biology and Toxicology5, 331–347.
4.
ICCVAM (2001). Guidance document on using in vitro data to estimate in vivo starting doses for acute toxicity, based on recommendations from an International Workshop organized by the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM) and the National Toxicology Program (NTP) Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods (NICEATM).102 pp. NIH Publication No: 01-4500. Research Triangle Park, NC, USA: ICCVAM.
5.
BorenfreundE., & PuernerJ.A. (1985). Toxicity determination in vitro by morphological alterations and neutral red absorption. Toxicology Letters24, 119–124.
6.
SpielmannH., LiebschM., KalweitS., MoldenhauerF., WirnsbergerT., HolzhütterH.G., SchneiderB., GlaserS., GernerI., PapeW.J.W., KreilingR., KrauserK., MiltenburgerH.G., SteilingW., LuepkeN.P., MüllerN., KreuzerH., MürmannP., SpenglerJ., Bertram-NeisE., SiegemundB., & WiebelF.J. (1996). Results of a validation study in Germany on two in vitro alternatives to the Draize eye irritation test, the HET-CAM test and the 3T3 NRU cytotoxicity test. ATLA24, 741–858.
7.
LindlT. (2002). Zell- und Gewebekultur. 5th edition, 316 pp. Heidelberg, Germany: Spektrum Akademischer Verlag.
8.
FreshneyR.I. (2000). Culture of Animal Cells. 4th edition, 600 pp. New York, NY, USA: Wiley-Liss.
9.
MosmannT. (1983). Rapid colorimetric assay for cellular growth and survival: application to proliferation and cytotoxicity assays. Journal of Immunological Methods65, 207–212.
10.
IshiyamaH., TominagaH., ShigaM., SasamotoK., OhkuraY., & UenoK. (1996). A combined assay of cell viability and in vitro cytotoxicity with a highly water-soluble tetrazolium salt, Neutral Red and Crystal Violet. Biological Pharmaceutical Bulletin19, 518–520.
11.
SousaM.C., & Poiares-da-SilvaJ. (2001). The cytotoxic effects of ciprofloxacin in Giardia lamblia trophozoites. Toxicology in Vitro15, 297–301.
12.
WinkelmeierP., GlaunerB., & LindlT. (1993). Quantification of cytotoxicity by cell volume and cell proliferation. ATLA21, 269–280.
13.
LiN., MiaoX., TakakuwaM., SatoK., & SatoM. (1999). Effect of dental material HEMA monomer on human dental pulp cells. Artificial Cells Blood Substitutes Immobilization Biotechnology27, 85–90.
14.
YoshiiE. (1996). Cytotoxic effects of acrylates and methacrylates: Relationship of monomer structures and cytotoxicity. Journal of Biomedical Material Research37, 517–524.
15.
ReichlF.X., WaltherU.I., DrunerJ., KeheK., HickelR., KunzelmannK.H., SpahlW., HumeW.R., BenschopH., & ForthW. (2001). Cytotoxicity of dental composite components and mercury compounds in lung cells. Dental Materials17, 95–101.
16.
PomeratC.M., & LeakeC.D. (1954). Short term cultures for drug assays: general considerations. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences58, 1110–1128.
17.
VanchaA.R., GovindarajuS., ParsaK.V., JastiM., Gonzalez-GarciaM., & BallesteroR.P. (2004). Use of polyethyleneimine polymer in cell culture as attachment factor and lipofection enhancer. Biomed Central (BMC) Biotechnology4, 23.
18.
SmithC.G., GradyJ.E., & NorthamJ.I. (1963). Relationship between cytotoxicity in vitro and whole animal toxicity. Cancer Chemotherapeutic Report30, 9–12.
19.
HalleW., SpielmannH., & LiebschM. (2000). Zur Prädiktion der lethalen Konzentration beim Menschen mit Hilfe von Zytotoxizitätsdaten von 50 MEIC-Stoffen. Alternativen zu Tierexperimenten (ALTEX)17, 75–79.
20.
PhilipsJ.C., GibsonW.B., YamJ., AldenC.L., & HardG.C. (1990). Survey of the QSAR and in vitro approaches for developing non-animal methods to supersede the in vivo LD50 test. Food and Chemical Toxicology28, 375–394.
21.
GarleM., FentemJ., & FryJ.R. (1994). In vitro cytotoxicity tests for the prediction of acute toxicity in vivo.Toxicology in Vitro8, 1303–1312.
22.
BorenfreundE., BabichH., & Martin-AlguacilN. (1990). Comparison of two in vitro cytotoxicity assays: the neutral red (NR) and tetrazolium MTT tests. Toxicology in Vitro2, 1–6.
23.
KrauseA.W., CarleyW.W., & WebbW.W. (1984). Fluorescent erythrosine B is preferable to trypan blue as a vital exclusion dye for mammalian cells in monolayer culture. Journal of Histochemistry and Cytochemistry32, 1084–1090.
24.
WilhelmF., MelzigM., GörscherT., & FrankeG. (1995). Die unterschiedliche Aussagekraft verschiedener Vitalfärbungen des Hornhautepithels. Ophtalmologe92, 496–498.
25.
GainP., ThuretG., ChiquetC., DumollardJ.M., MosnierJ.F., BurillonC., DelboscB., HerveP., & CamposL. (2002). Value of two mortality assessment techniques for organ cultured corneal endothelium: trypan blue versus TUNEL technique. British Journal of Ophthalmology86, 306–310.
26.
MaileW., LindlT., & WeissD.G. (1989). New methods for cytotoxicity testing: quantitative video microscopy of intracellular motion and mitochondria-specific fluorescence. Journal of Molecular Toxicology1, 427–437.
27.
GeorgeT.C., BasijiD.A., HallB.E., LynchD.H., OrtynW.E., PerryD.J., SeoM.J., ZimmermannC.A., & MorrisseyP.J. (2004). Distinguishing modes of cell death using the ImageStream multispectral imaging flow cytometer. Cytometry A59, 237–45.
