The recent European Commission REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals) policy outlines a plan for toxicological testing by using alternative non-animal in vitro methods. In this context, there is a need to develop and standardise high-throughput screening (HTS) methods for studying the cytotoxicity induced by chemicals. Electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) can be considered as a complementary technique to alternative in vitro testing for studying cell adhesion to the substrate, and can give real-time and kinetic information on cell responses to a toxicant. This paper describes the development of a home-made chip based on impedance spectroscopy, and its application in studying the kinetics of BALB/3T3 cell adhesion and the cellular responses to a toxic product as a function of time. Concentrations of sodium arsenite, ranging from 10μM up to 1000μM, were tested in the system, and the results were compared with those obtained with standard protocols used to study basal cytotoxicity induced by chemicals in the BALB/3T3 cell line. The results show that the sensitivity of the developed chip was better than that with the MTT test, with the additional advantages of online monitoring.
Anon. (2001). White Paper on a Strategy for a Future Chemicals Policy (COM 2001) 88 final, 32 pp. Belgium, Brussels: The Commission of the European Communities. Website http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/chemicals/whitepaper.htm (Accessed 15.09.06).
2.
PerdersenF., de BruijinJ., MunnS., & Van LeeuwenK. (2003). Assessment of additional testing needs under REACH — effects of (Q)SARs, risk based testing and voluntary industry initiatives. JRC Report EUR 20863, 33 pp. Ispra, Italy: European Commission Joint Research Centre.
3.
BorenfreundE., BabichH., & Martin-AguacilN. (1988). Comparison of two in vitro cytotoxicity assays — the Neutral Red (NR) and Tetrazolium MTT tests. Toxicology in Vitro2, 1–6.
4.
RissT., O'brienM., & MorvecR. (2003). Choosing the right cell-based assay for your research. Cell Notes6, 6–12.
5.
MazzottiF., SabbioniE., PontiJ., GhianiM., FortanerS., & RossiG.L. (2002). In vitro setting of dose–effect relationships of 32 metal compounds in the BALB/3T3 cell line as a basis for predicting their carcinogenic potential. ATLA30, 209–217.
6.
WegenerJ., HakvoortA., & GallaH-J. (2000). Barrier function of porcine choroid plexus epithelial cells is modulated by cAMP-dependent pathways in vitro.Brain Research85, 3115–3124.
7.
GiaeverI., & KeeseC.R. (1984). Monitoring fibroblast behaviour in tissue culture with an applied electric field. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA8, 3761–3764.
8.
WegenerJ., KeeseC.R., & GiaeverI. (2000). Electric cell-substrate impedance sensing (ECIS) as a non-invasive means to monitor the kinetics of cell spreading to artificial surfaces. Experimental Cell Research259, 158–166.
9.
GiaeverI., & KeeseC.R. (1991). Micromotion of mammalian cells measured electrically. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA88, 7896–7900.
10.
ArndtS., SeebachJ., PsathakiK.P., GallaH-J., & WegenerJ. (2004). Bioelectrical impedance assay to monitor changes in cell shape during apoptosis. Biosensors and Bioelectronics19, 583–594.
11.
WegenerJ., ZinkS., HansP.R., & GallaH-J. (1999). Use of electrochemical impedance measurements to monitor β-adrenergic stimulation of bovine aortic endothelial cells. European Journal of Physiology437, 925–934.
12.
WegenerJ., KeeseC.R., & GiaeverI. (2002). Recovery of adherent cells after in situ electroporation monitored electrically. BioTechniques33, 348–357.
13.
XiaoC., & LuongJ.H.T. (2003). On-line monitoring of cell growth and cytotoxicity using electric cell-substrate impedance sensing (ECIS). Biotechnology Progress19, 1000–1105.
14.
XiaoC., LachanceB., SunaharaG., & LuongJ.H.T. (2002). Assessment of cytotoxicity using electric cell-substrate impedance sensing: concentration and time response function approach. Analytical Chemistry74, 5748–5753.
15.
YeonJ.H., & ParkJ-K. (2005). Cytotoxicity test based on electrochemical impedance measurements of HepG2 cultured in microfabricated cell chip. Analytical Biochemistry341, 308–315.
16.
SollyK., WangX., XuX., StruloviciB., & ZhengW. (2004). Application of real-time cell electronic sensing (RT-CES) technology to cell-based assays. Assay and Drug Development Technologies2, 363–372.
17.
XingJ.Z., ZhuL., JacksonJ.A., GabosS., SunX-J., WangX.X., & XuX. (2005). Dynamic monitoring of cytotoxicity on microelectronic sensors. Chemical Research in Toxicology18, 154–161.
EhretR., BaumannW., BrischweinM., SchwindeA., StegbauerK., & WolfB. (1997). Monitoring of cellular behaviour by impedance measurements on interdigitated electrode structures. Biosensors and Bioelectronics12, 29–41.
21.
HartungT., BremerS., CasatiS., CoeckeS., CorviR., FortanerS., GribaldoL., HalderM., RojA.J., PrietoP., SabbioniE., WorthA., & ZuangV. (2003). ECVAM's response to the changing political environment for alternatives: consequence of the European Union Chemical and Cosmetic Policies. ATLA31, 473–481.
22.
MazzottiF., SabbioniE., GhianiM., CoccoB., CeccatelliR., & FortanerS. (2001). In vitro assessment of cytotoxicity and carcinogenic potential of chemicals: evaluation of the cytotoxicity induced by 58 metal compounds in the BALB/3T3 cell line. ATLA29, 601–611.
23.
MinoiaR., PietraR., SabbioniE., RonchiA., GattiA., CavalieriA., & ManzoL. (1992). Trace element reference values in tissue from inhabitants of the European Community. III. The control of preanalytical factors in the biomonitoring of trace elements in biological fluids. Science of the Total Environment120, 63–79.
24.
EklundS.E., SniderR.M., WikswoJ., BaudenbacherF., ProkopA., & CliffelD.E. (2006). Multianalyte microphysiometry as tool in metabolomics and system biology. Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry587, 333–339.
25.
Mestres-VenturaP., MorguetA., SchoferA., LaueM., & SchmidtW. (2005). Application of silicon sensor technologies to tumor tissue in vitro: detection of metabolic correlates of chemosensitivity. Methods of Molecular Medicine111, 109–125.
