Skip to main content
Log in

The response of primary rat and human osteoblasts and an immortalized rat osteoblast cell line to orthopaedic materials: comparative sensitivity of several toxicity indices

  • Published:
Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

When studying the biocompatibility of orthopaedic biomaterials it isoften necessary to discriminate between responses which show mild cytotoxicity.It is therefore essential to use a very sensitive index of toxicity. We havecompared the sensitivity of four well-established indices of toxicity: totalcell protein content, leakage of lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), reducedglutathione content and the MTT assay, with that of a novel index, alkalinephosphatase (ALP) activity. Comparisons were made by detecting nickel chloridetoxicity in osteoblasts. ALP activity, the novel method, proved the mostsensitive index of toxicity and it provides a convenient automated assay forassessing the interactions of materials with osteoblasts. The responses tonickel chloride and to aqueous extracts prepared from carbon fibre reinforcedepoxy and polyetheretherketone (peek), two candidate materials for orthopaedicimplants, were compared in primary and immortalized rat osteoblasts, and !in primary human osteoblasts. Although the immortalized rat osteoblast cell line,FFC, was consistently the most sensitive cell type, the responses of the humancells and the FFC cell line were similar in terms of ALP activity throughout therange of nickel concentrations studied. Neither peek nor epoxy material extractsshowed a significant decrease in the MTT or ALP responses in any of the threecell types. Our data suggest that immortalized rat osteoblasts may provide anin vitro model system for screening the biocompatibility of orthopaedicpolymers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. J. CARMICHAEL, W. G. deGRAFF, A. F. GAZDAR, J. D. MINNA and J. B. MITCHELL, Cancer Res. 47 (1987) 936.

    Google Scholar 

  2. M. C. ALLEY, D. A. SCUDIERO, A. MONKS, M. L. HURSEY, M. J. CZERWINSKI, D. L. FINE, B. J. ABBOT, J. G. MAYO, R. H. SHOEMAKER and M. R. BOYD, ibid. 48 (1988) 589.

    Google Scholar 

  3. H. WAN, R. WILLIAMS, P. DOHERTY and D. F. WILLIAMS, J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Med. 5 (1994) 154.

    Google Scholar 

  4. M. D. SMITH, J. C. BARBENEL, J. M. COURTNEY and M. H. GRANT, Int. J. Art. Org. 15 (1992) 191.

    Google Scholar 

  5. J. A. PLUMB, R. MILROY and S. B. KAYE, Cancer Res. 49 (1989) 4435.

    Google Scholar 

  6. A. MEISTER. In “The liver: biology and pathobiology”, edited by I. M. Arias, W. B. Jakoby, H. Popper, D. Schachter and D. A. Shafritz (Raven Press, New York, 1988) p. 401.

    Google Scholar 

  7. L. D. DORR, R. BLOEBAUM, J. EMMANUAL and R. MELDRUM, Clin. Orthop. Res. 261 (1990) 82.

    Google Scholar 

  8. U. E. PIZZAGLIA, C. MINOIA, L. CECILIANI and C. RICCARDI, Acta. Orthop. Scand. 54 (1983) 574.

    Google Scholar 

  9. M. H. GRANT, C. NUGENT and R. BERTRAND, Toxicol. In Vitro 8 (1994) 191.

    Google Scholar 

  10. L. J. BEARDEN and F. W. COOKE, J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 14 (1980) 289.

    Google Scholar 

  11. C. J. KIRKPATRICK, W. MOHR and O. HAFERKAMP, Res. Exp. Med. 181 (1982) 259.

    Google Scholar 

  12. C. MORRISON, R. MACNAIR, C. MACDONALD, A. WYKMAN, I. GOLDIE and M. H. GRANT, Biomaterials 16 (1995) 987.

    Google Scholar 

  13. C. MACDONALD, M. VASS, B. WILLETT, A. SCOTT and M. H. GRANT, Human Exp. Toxicol. 13 (1994) 439.

    Google Scholar 

  14. M. H. GRANT, N. GRANGER and C. MACDONALD, Brit. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 38 (1994) p. 172.

    Google Scholar 

  15. I. BINDERMAN, D. DUKSIN, A. HARELL, E. KATZIR and L. SACHS, J. Cell Biol. 61 (1974) 427.

    Google Scholar 

  16. U. KREUZBURG-DUFFY and C. MACDONALD, Immunology 72 (1991) 368.

    Google Scholar 

  17. D. C. ANUFORO, D. ACOSTA and R. V. SMITH, In Vitro 14 (1978) 981.

    Google Scholar 

  18. R. J. HISSIN and R. HILF, Anal. Biochem. 74 (1976) 214.

    Google Scholar 

  19. O. H. LOWRY, N. J. ROSEBROUGH, A. L. FARR and R. J. RANDALL, J. Biol. Chem. 193 (1951) 265.

    Google Scholar 

  20. N. F. HARMAND, L. BORDENAVE, R. BAREILLE, A. NAJI, R. JEANDOT, F. ROUAIS and D. DUCASSOU, J. Biomater. Sci. Polymer Edn 2 (1991) 67.

    Google Scholar 

  21. A. PIZZOFERRATO, G. CIAPETTI, S. STEA, E. CENNI, C. R. ARCIOLA, D. GRANCHI and L. SAVARINO, Clin. Mater. 15 (1994) 173.

    Google Scholar 

  22. L. M. WENZ, K. MERRITT, S. A. BROWN, A. MOET and A. D. STEFFEE, J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 24 (1990) 207.

    Google Scholar 

  23. K. A. JOCKISH, S. A. BROWN, T. W. BAUER and K. MERRITT, ibid. 26 (1992) 133.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

MACNAIR , R., RODGERS , E.H., MACDONALD , C. et al. The response of primary rat and human osteoblasts and an immortalized rat osteoblast cell line to orthopaedic materials: comparative sensitivity of several toxicity indices. Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine 8, 105–111 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018510900941

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018510900941

Keywords

Navigation