Mutagenesis Advance Access published online on April 24, 2007
Mutagenesis, doi:10.1093/mutage/gem013
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cytotoxicity in cultured mammalian cells is a function of the method used to estimate it
Genetic Toxicology, Safety Assessment, AstraZeneca, R&D Alderley Park, Macclesfield, Cheshire SK10 4TG, UK
Up to prescribed limits, the maximum test compound concentrations used in mammalian cell genotoxicity assays in vitro are determined by cytotoxicity, unless limited by solubility in solvents or culture medium. However, ‘cytotoxicity’ is different in the various test systems, both in the methods used to estimate it and the levels of toxicity that must be achieved. For example, in cytogenetic assays, the acceptable level of toxicity is defined as a ‘significant reduction (>50%)’ in cell number, culture confluency or mitotic index (MI) (OECD 473, ICH S2A), whereas mutation tests require relative total growth or cloning efficiency (CE) to be reduced by 80–90% (OECD 476, ICH S2A). In this study using mouse lymphoma cells, it was shown that, for a variety of agents with differing modes of action, cytotoxicity varies considerably depending on the method used to estimate it. Specifically, trypan blue exclusion, MI and binucleate incidence all grossly underestimate cytotoxicity in comparison with cell growth or CE. If the performance of different test systems is to be compared, or if data from different assays are to be used for the meaningful assessment of a novel chemical entity, it is essential that similar methods to determine cytotoxicity are used for them all. The purpose of this paper is not to recommend a specific method to determine cytotoxicity, although it can be argued that any such method must quantify the proportion of cells capable of division following treatment, but rather to draw attention to the fact that apparent toxicity depends upon the method used to estimate it.
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel: +44 1625 513749; Fax: +44 1625 231281; Email: mike.odonovan{at}astrazeneca.com
Received on August 2, 2006; revised on February 8, 2007; accepted on March 2, 2007.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  C. Jagger, M. Tate, P. A. Cahill, C. Hughes, A. W. Knight, N. Billinton, and R. M. Walmsley Assessment of the genotoxicity of S9-generated metabolites using the GreenScreen HC GADD45a-GFP assay Mutagenesis, January 1, 2009; 24(1): 35 - 50. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. R. Collins, A. A. Oscoz, G. Brunborg, I. Gaivao, L. Giovannelli, M. Kruszewski, C. C. Smith, and R. Stetina The comet assay: topical issues Mutagenesis, May 1, 2008; 23(3): 143 - 151. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 X. Zhao and P. Lacasse Mammary tissue damage during bovine mastitis: Causes and control J Anim Sci, March 1, 2008; 86(13_suppl): 57 - 65. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|