Single-Cell ELISA and Flow Cytometry as Methods for Highlighting Potential Neuronal and Astrocytic Toxicant Specificity
- 439 Downloads
The timeline imposed by recent worldwide chemical legislation is not amenable to conventional in vivo toxicity testing, requiring the development of rapid, economical in vitro screening strategies which have acceptable predictive capacities. When acquiring regulatory neurotoxicity data, distinction on whether a toxic agent affects neurons and/or astrocytes is essential. This study evaluated neurofilament (NF) and glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) directed single-cell (S-C) ELISA and flow cytometry as methods for distinguishing cell-specific cytoskeletal responses, using the established human NT2 neuronal/astrocytic (NT2.N/A) co-culture model and a range of neurotoxic (acrylamide, atropine, caffeine, chloroquine, nicotine) and non-neurotoxic (chloramphenicol, rifampicin, verapamil) test chemicals. NF and GFAP directed flow cytometry was able to identify several of the test chemicals as being specifically neurotoxic (chloroquine, nicotine) or astrocytoxic (atropine, chloramphenicol) via quantification of cell death in the NT2.N/A model at cytotoxic concentrations using the resazurin cytotoxicity assay. Those neurotoxicants with low associated cytotoxicity are the most significant in terms of potential hazard to the human nervous system. The NF and GFAP directed S-C ELISA data predominantly demonstrated the known neurotoxicants only to affect the neuronal and/or astrocytic cytoskeleton in the NT2.N/A cell model at concentrations below those affecting cell viability. This report concluded that NF and GFAP directed S-C ELISA and flow cytometric methods may prove to be valuable additions to an in vitro screening strategy for differentiating cytotoxicity from specific neuronal and/or astrocytic toxicity. Further work using the NT2.N/A model and a broader array of toxicants is appropriate in order to confirm the applicability of these methods.
KeywordsGFAP Neurofilaments NT2 Astrocytes Neurons Neurotoxicity
The authors are grateful to the Humane Research Trust (Stockport, UK) for financial support for this study.
- AM ECV (2002) Target organ and target system toxicity. Altern Lab Anim 30(1):71–82Google Scholar
- Anderl JL, Redpath S, Ball AJ (2009) A neuronal and astrocyte co-culture assay for high content analysis of neurotoxicity. J Vis Exp. doi: 10.3791/1173
- Anthony DC, Montine TJ, Valentine WM, Graham DG (2001) Chapter 16: toxic responses of the nervous system. In: Klassen CD (ed) Casarett and Doull’s Toxicology: the basic science of poisons, 6th edn. McGraw–Hill, London, pp 535–564Google Scholar
- Atterwill CK, Bruinink A, Drejer J, Duarte E, Abdulla EM, Meredith C et al (1994) In-vitro neurotoxicity testing—the report and recommendations of ECVAM workshop-3. ATLA Altern Lab Anim 22:350–362Google Scholar
- Bal-Price AK, Hogberg HT, Buzanska L, Coecke S (2009) Relevance of in vitro neurotoxicity testing for regulatory requirements: challenges to be considered. Neurotoxicol Teratol. doi: 10.1016/j.ntt.2008.12.003
- Kirkpatrick L, Brady S (1998) The cytoskeleton of neurons and glia, chap 11. In: Siegel GJ, Agranoff BW, Albers RW, Fisher SK, Uhler MD (eds) Basic neurochemistry: molecular, cellular and medical aspects, 6th edn. Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins, London, pp 135–174Google Scholar
- Knight A (2008) Non-animal methodologies within biomedical research and toxicity testing. Altex Altern Tierexp 25:213–231Google Scholar
- OECD Guideline for the testing of chemicals (1995) TG 418. Delayed neurotoxicity of organophosphorus substances following acute exposure, July 1995Google Scholar
- OECD Guideline for the testing of chemicals (1997) TG 424. Neurotoxicity study in rodents, July 1997Google Scholar
- OECD Guideline for the testing of chemicals (2007) TG 426. Developmental neurotoxicity study, October 2007Google Scholar
- Schmuck G, Ahr HJ, Schluter G (2000) Rat cortical neuron cultures: an in vitro model for differentiating mechanisms of chemically induced neurotoxicity. In Vitro Mol Toxicol 13:37–49Google Scholar