Direct cytotoxicity evaluation of 63S bioactive glass and bone-derived hydroxyapatite particles using yeast model and human chondrocyte cells by microcalorimetry

  • A. Doostmohammadi
  • A. Monshi
  • M. H. Fathi
  • S. Karbasi
  • O. Braissant
  • A. U. Daniels


In this study, the cytotoxicity evaluation of prepared 63S bioactive glass and bone-derived hydroxyapatite particles with yeast and human chondrocyte cells was carried out using isothermal micro-nano calorimetry (IMNC), which is a new method for studying cell/biomaterial interactions. Bioactive glass particles were made via sol–gel method and hydroxyapatite was obtained from bovine bone. Elemental analysis was carried out by XRF and EDXRF. Amorphous structure of the glass and completely crystalline structure of HA were detected by XRD analysis. Finally, the cytotoxicity of bioactive glass and bone-derived HA particles with yeast and cultured human chondrocyte cells was evaluated using IMNC. The results confirmed the viability, growth and proliferation of human chondrocyte cells in contact with 63S bioactive glass, and bone-derived HA particles. Also the results indicated that yeast model which is much easier to handle, can be considered as a good proxy and can provide a rapid primary estimate of the ranges to be used in assays involving human cells. All of these results confirmed that IMNC is a convenient method which caters to measuring the cell-biomaterial interactions alongside the current methods.


Bioactive Glass Microcalorimetry Yeast Model Yeast Peptone Dextrose Chondrocyte Cell 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The authors are grateful to professor Uwe Pieles (FHNW, Muttenz) for superb technical assistance.


  1. 1.
    Quteish D, Singrao S, Dolby AE. Light and electron microscopic evaluation of biocompatibility, resorption and penetration characteristics of human collagen graft material. J Clin Periodontol. 1991;18:305–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zhang H, Ye XJ, Li JS. Preparation and biocompatibility evaluation of apatite/wollastonite-derived porous bioactive glass ceramic scaffolds. Biomed Mater. 2009;4:353–9.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sundback CA, Shyu JY, Wang Y, Faquin WC, Langer RS, Vacanti JP, Hadlock TA. Biocompatibility analysis of poly(glycerol sebacate) as a nerve guide material. Biomaterials. 2005;26:5454–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hanks CT, Wataha JC, Sun Z. In vitro models of biocompatibility: a review. Dent Mater. 1996;12:186–93.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bélanger MC, Marois Z. Hemocompatibility, biocompatibility, inflammatory and in vivo studies of primary reference materials low-density polyethylene and polydimethylsiloxane: a review. J Biomed Mater Res. 2001;58:467–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Xie Y, Depierre JW, Sberger LN. Biocompatibility of microplates for culturing epithelial renal cells evaluated by a microcalorimetric technique. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2000;11:587–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Trampuz A, Salzmann S, Antheaume J, Daniels AU. Microcalorimetry: a novel method for detection of microbial contamination in platelet products. Transfusion. 2007;47:150–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    James AM. Thermal and energetic studies of cellular biological systems. Bristol: Wright; 1987. p. 147–66.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Beezer AE. Biological microcalorimetry. London: Academic Press; 1980.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fontana AJ, Hansen LD, Breidenbach RW, Criddle RS. Microcalorimetric measurement of aerobic cell metabolism in unstirred cell cultures. Thermochim Acta. 1990;172:105–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Daniels AU, Wirz D, Trampuz A. U.S. Patent No. 0317859 (2009).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Braissant O, Wirz D, Gopfert B, Daniels AU. Use of isothermal microcalorimetry to monitor microbial activities. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2009;303(1):1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kemp RB, Guan YH. The application of heat flux measurements to improve the growth of mammalian cells in culture. Thermochim Acta. 2000;349:23–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kemp RB. Hand book of thermal analysis and calorimetry. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1999.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Malik MA, Puleo DA, Bizios R, Doremus RH. Osteoblasts on hydroxyapatite, alumina and bone surface in vitro: morphology during the first 2 h of attachment. Biomaterials. 1992;13:123–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Alliot-Licht B, Gregoire M, Orly I, Menanteau J. Cellular activity of osteoblasts in the presence of hydroxyapatite: an in vitro experiment. Biomaterials. 1991;12:752–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gough JE, Notingher I, Hench LL. Osteoblast attachment and mineralized nodule formation on rough and smooth 45S5 bioactive glass monoliths. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2004;68(4):640–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Buschini A, Poli P, Rossi C. Saccharomyces cerevisiae as an eukaryotic cell model to assess cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of three anticancer anthraquinones. Mutagenesis. 2003;18:25–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Forsburg SL. The yeasts Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Schizosaccharomyces pombe: models for cell biology research. Gravit Space Biol. 2005;18:3–10.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Primio CD, Galli A, Cervelli T, Zoppe M, Rainaldi G. Potentiation of gene targeting in human cells by expression of Saccharomyces cerevisiae Rad52. Nucl Acids Res. 2005;33:4639–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ferguson LR, Borstel R. Induction of the cytoplasmic ‘petite’ mutation by chemical and physical agents in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mutat Res. 1992;265:103–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fathi MH, Doostmohammadi A. Preparation and characterization of sol–gel bioactive glass coating for improvement of biocompatibility of human body implant. Mater Sci Eng A. 2008;474:128–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Balamurugan A, Balossier G, Kannan S, Michel J, Rebelo AH, Ferreira JM. Development and in vitro characterization of sol–gel derived CaO–P2O5–SiO2–ZnO bioglass. Acta Biomater. 2007;3:255–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Moretti M, Wendt D, Dickinson SC, Sims TJ, Hollander AP, Kelly DJ, Prendergast PJ, Heberer M, Martin I. Effects of in vitro preculture on in vivo development of human engineered cartilage in an ectopic model. Tissue Eng. 2005;11:1421–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tian M, Cheng F, Song W, Song Y, Chen Y, Wan C, Zhang X. In vivo study of porous strontium-doped calcium polyphosphate scaffolds for bone substitute applications. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2009;20:1505–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nagase M, Abe Y, Chigira M, Udagawa E. Toxicity of silica-containing calcium phosphate glasses demonstrated in mice. Biomaterials. 1992;13:172–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Farber JL. The role of calcium ions in toxic cell injury. Environ Health Perspect. 1990;84:107–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hench LL. The story of bioglass. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2006;17:967–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sandstrom B, Walter P. Role of trace elements for health promotion and disease prevention. Nutr Res. 1998;23:1745.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ruksudjarit A, Pengpat K, Rujijanagul G, Tunkasiri T. Synthesis and characterization of nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite from natural bovine bone. Curr Appl Phys. 2007;8:270–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bigi A, Boanini E, Rubini K. Hydroxyapatite gels and nanocrystals prepared through a sol–gel process. J Solid State Chem. 2004;177:3092–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Li P, Kai Z, Clifford W. Indirect cytotoxicity evaluation of silver doped bioglass Ag-S70C30 on human primary keratinocytes. Key Eng Mater. 2005;284:431–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Yamamoto A, Honma R, Sumita M, Hanawa T. Cytotoxicity evaluation of ceramic particles of different sizes and shapes. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2004;68:244–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Zhang K, Washburn NR, Simon CG. Cytotoxicity of three-dimensionally ordered macroporous sol–gel bioactive glass (3DOM-BG). Biomaterials. 2004;26:4532–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Cervinka M, Puza V, Hroch M, Cervinkova Z. In vitro cytotoxicity testing of metal alloys used in medicine: comparison of different approaches. Toxicol In Vitro. 1994;8:783–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Estebana SL, Saiza E, Fujinob S, Okuc T, Suganumac K, Tomsia AP. Bioactive glass coatings for orthopedic metallic implants. J Eur Ceram Soc. 2003;23:2921–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Niiranenand H, Tormala P. Bioabsorbable polymer plates coated with bioactive glass spheres. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 1999;10:707–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Nair MB, Varma HK, Kumary TV, Babu S, John A. Cell interaction studies with novel bioglass coated hydroxyapatite porous blocks. Trends Biomater Artif Organs. 2006;19:108–14.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Doostmohammadi
    • 1
    • 2
  • A. Monshi
    • 1
  • M. H. Fathi
    • 1
  • S. Karbasi
    • 3
  • O. Braissant
    • 4
  • A. U. Daniels
    • 4
  1. 1.Biomaterials Group, Materials Engineering DepartmentIsfahan University of TechnologyIsfahanIran
  2. 2.Isfahan University of Medical SciencesIsfahanIran
  3. 3.Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering GroupSchool of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical SciencesIsfahanIran
  4. 4.Laboratory of Biomechanics & Biocalorimetry, Coalition for Clinical Morphology & Biomedical EngineeringFaculty of Medicine ,University of BaselBaselSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations