Review on the In Vitro Cytotoxicity Assessment in Accordance to the International Organization for Standardization (ISO)
Main Article Content
Abstract
Cytotoxicity is a predominant biological evaluation applied to search for a suitable and non-toxic bioactive compound and to determine the biocompatibility of medical devices-related human body. The broad usage of cytotoxicity tests leads to a robust establishment of cytotoxicity assays with high sensitivity and prompt results. In vitro assays are always prioritized over in vivo due to the reproducible data, reduce numbers of animal used and easily accessible material. Compounds concentration that execute 50% of cell population is determined by calculating the IC50. According to ISO10993, cytotoxicity tests must be performed to determine the biocompatibility of medical devices that has contact with human body. This is crucial to ensure the safety of research and its clinical use. Under the recommendation of ISO10995-Part 5, three categories of tests have been documented; extract elution, direct contact and indirect contact test. Each category plays significant role depending on the nature of experiment and sample used.
Downloads
Article Details
References
Vinken M & Blaauber BJ. In vitro testing of basal cytotoxicity: establishment of an adverse outcome pathway from chemical insult to cell death. Toxicology in Vitro. 2017; 39:104-110. doi:10.1016/j.tiv.2016.12.004
Rehberger K, Kropf C, Segner H. In vitro or not in vitro: a short journal through a long history. Environmental Sciences Europe. 2018; 30(23).
Tolosa L, Donato T, Gomez-Lechon MJ. General cytotoxicity assessment by means of the MTT assay. Methods in molecular biology. 2015. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4939-2074-7_26
Hussein KH, Park KM, Kang KS, Woo HM. Biocompatibility evaluation of tissue-engineered decellularized scaffolds for biomedical application. Materials Science and Engineering C. 2016; 67:766-778
Gola J. Chapter10- Quality control of biomaterial- overview of the relevant technologies. Stem cells and biomaterials for regenerative medicine. 1st ed. Elsevier Science. ISBN:978-0-12-812258-7; 2019. p. 143-161. doi:10.1016/C2016-0-03365-X
Kunzmann A, Andersson B, Thurnherr T, Krug H, Scheynius A, Fadeel B. Toxicology of engineered nanomedical devices: Focus on biocompatibility, biodistribution and biodegradation. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta. 2011; 1810:361–373. doi:10.1016/j.bbagen.2010.04.007
ISO Standards Preclinical evaluation of biocompatibility of medical devices used in denstistry; International Organization for Standardization. 1st edition. ISO 7405 Dentistry; 1997. pp. 1-18.
Vinken M. The adverse outcome pathway concept: a pragmatic tool in toxicology. Toxicology. 2013; 312:158-165.
Liu X, Rodeheaver DP, White JC, Wright AM, Walker LM, Zhang F, Shannon S. A comparison of in vitro cytotoxicity assays in medical device regulatory studies. Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology. 2018; 97: 24-32.
Li W, Zhou J, Xu Y. Study of the in vitro cytotoxicity testing of medical devices (Review). Biomedical Reports. 2015; 3:617-620.
He Y, Zhu Q, Chen M, Huang Q, Wang W, Li Q, Huang Y, Di W. The changing 50% inhibitory concentration (IC50) of cisplatin: a pilot study on the artifacts of the MTT assay and the precise measurement of density-dependent chemoresistance in ovarian cancer. Oncotarget. 2016; 7(43):70803-70821. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.12223
Nalbantsoy A, Karabay-Yavasoglu NU, Sayim F, Deliloglu-Gurhan I, Gocmen B, Arikan H, Yildiz MA. Determimnation of in vivo toxicity and in vitro cytotoxicity of venom from the Cypriot blunt- nosed viper Macrovipera lebetina lebetina and antivenom production. The journal of venomous animals and toxins including tropical diseases. 2012;18(2):208-216.
Volpe DA, Hamed SS, Zhanng LK. Use of different parameters and equations for calculation of IC50 values in efflux assays: Potential sources of variability in IC50 determination. Journal of the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists. 2014;16:172-180.
Artun FT, Karagoz A, Ozcan G, Melikoglu G, Anil S, Kultur S, Sutlupinar N. In vitro anticancer and cytotoxic activities of some plant extracts on HeLa and Vero cell lines. Journal of the Balkan Union of Oncology. 2016; 21(3):720-725.
Ondo JP, Lekana-Douki JB, Bongul JB, Edou ES, Zatra R, Toure-Ndouo FS, Elonri A, Lebibi J, Seguin E. In vitro antiplasmodial activity and cytotoxicity of extracts and fractions of Vitex modiensis, medicinal plant of Gabon. Tropical Medicine & International Health. 2011;17(3). DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-3156.2011.02322.x
Pena-Moran OA, Villarreal ML, Alvarez-Berber L, Meneses-Acosta A, Rodriguez-Lopez V. Cytotoxicity, post-treatment recovery and selectivity analysis of naturally occurring podophyllotoxins from Bursera fagaroides var. fagaroides on breast cancer cell lines. Molecules. 2016; 21(1013). doi:10.3390/molecules21081013.
Chinedu E, Aroma D, Ameh FS. A new method for determining acute toxicity in animal models. Toxicology International. 2013;20(3):224-226. doi: 10.4103/0971-6580.121674.
National Toxicology Program. Guidance document on using in vitro data to estimate in vivo starting doses for acute toxicity. NIH Publication No. 01- 4500. August 2001.p 1-24.
Pusnik M, Imeri M, Deppierraz G, Bruinink A, Zinn M. The agar diffusion scratch assay- A novel method to assess the bioactive and cytotoxic potential of new materials and compounds. Scientific Reports. 2016;6. DOI: 10.1038/srep20854.
Srivastava GK, Alonso-Alonso ML, Fernandez- Bueno I, Garcia-Gutierrez MT, Rull F, Medina J, et al. Comparison between direct contact and extract exposure methods for PFO cytotoxicity evaluation. Scientific Reports. 2018; 8:1425.
ISO-10993-5: ISO document. Biological compatibility of medical devices- Part 5. Tests for cytotoxicity: In vitro methods, International Organization of Standardization, Geneva, 1992.4 n (Revision of ISO 10993-5;2009)
FDA, Used of International Standard ISO 109930-1. Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices – Part1: Evaluation and testing within a risk management process. 2016.
USP, USP general chapter <87> biological reactivity tests. In Vitro 2017:2017.
Chamchoy K, Pakotiprapha D, Pumirat P, Leartsakulpanich U, Boonyuen U. Application of WST-8 basd colorimetric NAD(P)H detection for quantitative dehydrogenase assays. BMC Biochemistry. 2019; 20:4 DOI: 10.1186/s12858-019-0108-1
Vajrabhaya L, Korsuwannawong S. Cytotoxicity evaluation of a Thai herb using tetrazolium (MTT) and sulforhodamine B (SRB) assays. Journal of analytical science and technology. 2018; 9:15
Rai Y, Pathak R, Kumari N, Sah DK, Pandey S, Kalra N, Soni R, Dwarakanath BS, Bhatt AN. Mitochondrial biogenesis and metabolic hyperactivation limits the application of MTT assay in the estimation of radiation induced growth inhibition. Scientific Reports. 2018; 8:1531.
Vidal MNP, Granjeiro JM. Cytotoxicity tests for evaluating medical devices: An alert for the development of biotechnology health products. J Biomedical Science and Engineering. 2017; 10(9):431-443.
Sastri VR. Plastics in medical devices: Properties, requirements and applications. 2nd ed. William Andrew; 2013. 336 p. ISBN:9780323265638.
Tonder AV, Joubert AM, Cromarty AD. Limitations of the 3-(4,5-dimethylthizol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyl-2H- tetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay when compared to three commonly used cell enumeration assays. BMC Res Notes. 2015; 8:47 doi: 10.1186/s13104- 015-1000-8
Wang P, Henning SM, Heber D. Limitations of MTT and MTS-based assay for measurement of antiproliferative activity of green tea polyphenols. Plos One. 2010; DOI: 10.1371/journal. pone.0010202.
Jung MY, Lee J, Park B, Hwang H, Sohn SO, Lee SH, et al. Applicability of a colorimetric method for evaluation of lactic acid bacteria with probiotic properties. Food Microbiology. 2017; 64:33–38. doi: 10.1016/j.fm.2016.12.008
Tahara H, Matsuda S, Yamamoto Y, Yoshizawa H, Fujita M, Katsuoka Y, et al. High-content image analysis (HCIA) assay has the highest correlation with direct counting cell suspension compared to the ATP, WST-8 and Alamar blue assays for measurement of cytotoxicity. Journal of Pharmacology Toxicology Methods. 2017; 88:92–99. doi: 10.1016/j.vascn.2017.08.003
Yin LM, Wei Y, Wang Y, Xu YD, Yang YQ. Long term and standard incubations of WST-1 reagent reflect the same inhibitory trend of cell viability in rat airway smooth muscle cells. International Journal of Medical Science. 2013; 10(1):68-72.
Gomez-Gutierrez JG, Bhutiani N, McNally MW, Chuong P, Yin W, Jones MA et al. The neutral red assay can be used to evaluate cell viability during autophagy or in an acidic microenvironment in vitro. Biotechnic & Histochemistry. 2020. doi:10.1080/10520295.2020.1802065
Ates G, Vanhaecke T, Rogiers V, Rodrigues RM. Assaying cellular viability using the neutral red uptake assay. Cell Viability Assays. 2017; 19-26.
Bruinink A & Luginbuehl R. Evaluation of biocompatibility using in vitro methods: interpretation and limitations. Tissue engineering III: Cell-Surface Interactions for Tissue Culture. 2011; 126:117-152.
Orellana EA & Kasinski AL. Sulforhodamine B (SRB) assay in cell culture to investigate cell proliferation. Bio protocol. 2016; 6(21);e1984.
Silva FSG, Starostina IG, Ivanova VV, Rizvanov AA, Oliveira PJ, Pereira SP. Determination of metabolic viability and cell mass using a tandem resazurin/sulforhodimine B assay. Current protocol toxicology. 2016; 68:2(24). doi: 10.1002/cptx.1.
Bacanli M, Anlar HG, Basaran AA, Basaran N. Assessment of cytotoxicity profiles of different phytochemicals: Comparison of neutral red and MTT assays in different cells in different time periods. Turkish Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences. 2017; 14(2):95-107.
Fotakis G, Timbrell JA. In vitro cytotoxicity assays: Comparison of LDH, neutral red, MTT and protein assay in hepatoma cell lines following exposure to cadmium chloride. Toxicology Letters. 2006; 160:171–177.
Putnam KP, Bombick DW, Doolittle DJ. Evaluation of eight in vitro assays for assessing the cytotoxicity of cigarette smoke condensate. Toxicol In Vitro. 2002; 16:599–607.
Keepers YP, Pizao PE, Peters GJ, Van AJ, Winograd B, Pinedo HM. Comparison of the sulforhodamine B protein and tetrazolium (MTT) assays for in vitro chemosensitivity testing. European Journal of Cancer. 1991;27:897–900.
National Cancer Institute (NCI) Screening Services. NCI-60 DTP Human Tumor Cell Line Screen. http://www.cancer.gov (2014).
Rampersad SN. Multiple applications of Alamar Blue as an indicator of metabolic function and cellular health in cell viability bioassays. Sensors (Basel). 2012; 12(9):12347-1236.
Zhang J, Wu L, Feng MX, Sexton P, Bai CX, Qu JM, Merrilees M, Black PN. Pulmonary fibroblasts from COPD patients show an impaired response of elastin synthesis to TGF-β1. Respiratory Physiology and Neurobiology. 2011; 177, 236–240. doi: 10.1016/j.resp.2011.04.019.
Lebeau PF, Chen J, Byun JH, Platko K, Austin RC. The trypan blue cellular debris assay: a novel low- cost method for the rapid quantification of cell death. MethodsX. 2019; 1174-1180. doi:10.1016/j.mex.2019.05.010.
Tran SL, Puhar A, Ngo-Camus M, Ramarao N. Trypan blue dye enters viable cells incubated with the pore-forming toxin hlhyll of Bacillus cereus. Plos One. 2011; 6(9):e22876. doi: 10.1371/Journal.pone.0022876.
Wiegand C & Hipler UC. Methods for the measurement of cell and tissue compatibility including tissue regeneration process. GMS Krankenhhyl interdiszip. 2008; 3(1):Doc12.
Ramirez CN, Antczak C, Djaballah H. Cell viability assessment: Toward content-rich platforms. Expert Opin Drug Discov. 2010; 5(3):223-233.
Garcia SN, Gutierrez L, McNulty A. Real-time cellular analysis as a novel approach for in vitro cytotoxicity testing of medical device extracts. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A. 2013; 101:2097-2106. doi: 10.1002/jbm.a.34507
Sehnem DP, de Souza ETG, Benamor L, de Jesus LDS, de Menezes Valentim R, Zambuzzi WF, Takamori ER. Metodos alternativos para avaliacao da citotoxicidade de biomaterials. 2012. Revista Rede de Cuidados em Saude, 6.