In Vitro Transformation Assays Using Mouse Embryo Cell Lines

C3H/10T1/2 Cells
  • John O. Rundell
Part of the Contemporary Biomedicine book series (CB, volume 4)

Abstract

C3H/10T1/2 C18 cells (“10T1/2”) have been employed in a variety of studies aimed at elucidation of the mechanism of cell transformation and, like 3T3 cells, have also been applied to the problem of chemical screening. This cell line was isolated from cultured C3H mouse embryo cells by Heidelberger and his colleagues (12, 13) and the 10T1/2 cells in use by various investigators can be traced directly to this laboratory. 10T1/2 cells and 3T3 cells exhibit a number of common characteristics, with the result that the assay protocols developed for the two cell lines are quite similar. For example, both cell lines are subject to post-confluence inhibition of replication (“contact inhibition”) and, in both cases, model carcinogen treatments result in the formation of foci of transformed cells superimposed on the contiguous monolayer of normal cells. As was the case for 3T3 cells, cells isolated from transformed 10T1/2 foci are transplantable. However, unlike 3T3 cells, the neoplastic potential of transformed 10T1/2 isolates appears to be linked to the degree of their initial expression of the morphologically transformed phenotype. Nonetheless, the basis for the use of 10T1/2 cells is similar to that previously described for SHE and 3T3 cells; the development of the transformed morphology is linked to the expression of cellular neoplastic qualities and therefore test material induction of the transformed phenotype is thought to be a reflection of the material’s carcinogenic potential.

Keywords

Toxicity Glycerol DMSO Assure 10T1I2 Cell 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Benedict, W. F., Banerjee, A., Gardner, A., and Jones, P. A., Cancer Res. 37, 2202 (1977).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bertran, J. S., and Heidelberger, C., Cancer Res. 34, 526 (1974).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bertram, S., Cancer Res., 37, 514 (1977).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fernandez, A., Mondal, S., and Heidelberger, C., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 77, 7272 (1980).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Haber, D. A., Fox, D. A, Dynan, W. S., and Thilly, W. G., Cancer Res. 37, 1644 (1977).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Haber, D. A., and Thilly, W. G., Life Sci. 2, 1663 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jones, P. A., Baker, M. S., Bertram, J. S., and Benedict, W. F., Cancer Res. 37, 2214 (1977).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 7.
    Jones, P.A., Benedict, W. F., Baker, M. S., Mondai, S., Rapp, U., and Heidelberger, C. Cancer Res 36,101 (1976).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jones, P.A., Laug, W.E., Gardner, A., Nye, C.A., Fink, L.M., and Benedict, W. F., Cancer Res. 36, 2863 (1976).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kakunaga, T., Int. J. Cancer 14, 736 (1974).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mondal, S., Brankow, D. W., and Heidelberger, C., Science 201, 41 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Reznikoff, C. A., Brankow, D. W., and Heidelberger, C., Cancer Res. 33, 3239 (1973).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Reznikoff, C. A., Brankow, D. W., and Heidelberger, C., Cancer Res. 33, 3231 (1973).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Terzaghi, M., and Little, J. B. Cancer Res. 36, 1367 (1976).PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The HAMANA Press Inc. 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • John O. Rundell

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations