Developmental Toxicology pp 147-179

Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 889) | Cite as

Embryonic Stem Cell Test: Stem Cell Use in Predicting Developmental Cardiotoxicity and Osteotoxicity

  • Béatrice Kuske
  • Polina Y. Pulyanina
  • Nicole I. zur Nieden
Protocol

Abstract

In order to prevent birth defects, toxicology programs have been designed to identify toxicities that may potentially be encountered in human embryos. With appropriate toxicity data sets, acceptable exposure levels and actual safety of prescription and nonprescription drugs as well as environmental chemicals could be established for individuals that are more vulnerable to chemical exposure, such as pregnant women and their unborn children. The gathering of such embryotoxicity data is currently performed in animal models. To reduce the spending of live animals, an assortment of in vitro assays has been proposed.

In this chapter, the embryonic stem cell test (EST) is reviewed as an alternative model for testing embryotoxicity. In contrast to most in vitro toxicity assays, the EST uses two permanent cell lines: murine 3T3 fibroblasts and murine embryonic stem cells (ESCs). To establish developmental toxicity, the difference in sensitivity towards the cytotoxic potential of a given test compound between the adult and the embryonic cells is compared with an MTT assay. In addition, the EST contrasts the inhibition of development that a test compound may cause utilizing the in vitro differentiation potential of the ESCs.

We describe here protocols to culture both cell lines as well as the differentiation of the ESCs into cardiomyocytes. Classically, the EST assesses developmental toxicity through counting of contracting cardiomyocyte agglomerates, which will be described as one endpoint. Although this classic EST has been validated in an EU-wide study, tremendous problems exist with the choice of endpoints, the EST’s predictivity, and the associated costs. We therefore also give details on the more recently introduced molecular analysis of cardiomyocyte-specific mRNAs, which already has been used to successfully predict developmental toxicity. Moreover, this chapter will explain a method to evaluate developmental bone toxicity and hencewith an experimental setup to differentiate ESCs into osteoblasts is presented along with two endpoint analyses that will establish generation of osteoblasts as well as their calcification in culture. The various differentiation endpoints may be set into relation to the cytotoxicity that the same test compound causes to ultimately predict the potential of a compound to excite developmental toxicity in vivo.

Key words

Embryonic stem cell test Developmental osteotoxicity Developmental cardiotoxicity Teratogen Embryotoxicity Pluripotent stem cells 

References

  1. 1.
    Gruber HE, Chow Y, Hoelscher GL, Ingram JA, Zinchenko N, Norton HJ, Sun Y, Hanley EN Jr (1976) Micromass culture of human anulus cells: morphology and extracellular matrix production. Spine 35(10): 1033–1038Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cuthbertson RA, Beck F (1990) Postimplantation whole embryo culture: a new method for studying ocular development. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 31(8):1653–1656PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hermsen SA, van den Brandhof EJ, van der Ven LT, Piersma AH (2011) Relative embryotoxicity of two classes of chemicals in a modified zebrafish embryotoxicity test and comparison with their in vivo potencies. Toxicol In Vitro 25(3):745–753PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Heuer J, Graeber IM, Pohl I, Spielmann H (1994) Culture system for the differentiation of murine embryonic stem cells – a new approach to in vitro testing for embryotoxicity and for developmental immunotoxicology. In: Fracchia GN (ed) European medicines research. IOS, Amsterdam, pp 134–145Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Scholz G, Genschow E, Pohl I, Bremer S, Paparella M, Raabe H, Southee J, Spielmann H (1999) Prevalidation of the embryonic stem cell test (EST) – a new in vitro embryotoxicity test. Toxicol In Vitro 13(4–5):675–681PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Evans MJ, Kaufman MH (1981) Establishment in culture of pluripotential cells from mouse embryos. Nature 292(5819):154–156PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Martin GR (1981) Isolation of a pluripotent cell line from early mouse embryos cultured in medium conditioned by teratocarcinoma stem cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 78(12): 7634–7638PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Doetschman TC, Eistetter H, Katz M, Schmidt W, Kemler R (1985) The in vitro development of blastocyst-derived embryonic stem cell lines: formation of visceral yolk sac, blood islands and myocardium. J Embryol Exp Morphol 87: 27–45PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wobus AM, Wallukat G, Hescheler J (1991) Pluripotent mouse embryonic stem cells are able to differentiate into cardiomyocytes expressing chronotropic responses to adrenergic and cholinergic agents and Ca2+ channel blockers. Differentiation 48(3):173–182PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Buttery LD, Bourne S, Xynos JD, Wood H, Hughes FJ, Hughes SP, Episkopou V, Polak JM (2001) Differentiation of osteoblasts and in vitro bone formation from murine embryonic stem cells. Tissue Eng 7(1):89–99PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zur Nieden NI, Kempka G, Ahr HJ (2003) In vitro differentiation of embryonic stem cells into mineralized osteoblasts. Differentiation 71(1):18–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Smith AG, Heath JK, Donaldson DD, Wong GG, Moreau J, Stahl M, Rogers D (1988) Inhibition of pluripotential embryonic stem cell differentiation by purified polypeptides. Nature 336(6200):688–690PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Niwa H, Burdon T, Chambers I, Smith A (1998) Self-renewal of pluripotent embryonic stem cells is mediated via activation of STAT3. Genes Dev 12(13):2048–2060PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hamazaki T, Oka M, Yamanaka S, Terada N (2004) Aggregation of embryonic stem cells induces Nanog repression and primitive endoderm differentiation. J Cell Sci 117(Pt 23):5681–5686PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zur Nieden NI, Kempka G, Ahr HJ (2004) Molecular multiple endpoint embryonic stem cell test-a possible approach to test for the teratogenic potential of compounds. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 194(3):257–269PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zur Nieden NI, Baumgartner L (2010) Assessing developmental osteotoxicity of chlorides in the embryonic stem cell test. Reprod Toxicol 30(2):277–283PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Genschow E, Spielmann H, Scholz G, Seiler A, Brown N, Piersma A, Brady M, Clemann N, Huuskonen H, Paillard F, Bremer S, Becker K (2002) The ECVAM international validation study on in vitro embryotoxicity tests: results of the definitive phase and evaluation of prediction models. European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods. Altern Lab Anim 30(2):151–176PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Laschinski G, Vogel R, Spielmann H (1991) Cytotoxicity test using blastocyst-derived euploid embryonal stem cells: a new approach to in vitro teratogenesis screening. Reprod Toxicol 5:57–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Spielmann H, Pohl I, Döring B, Liebsch M, Moldenhauer F (1997) The embryonic stem cell test (EST), an in vitro embryotoxicity test using two permanent mouse cell lines: 3T3 fibroblasts and embryonic stem cells. Toxicol In Vitro 10:119–127Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Genschow E, Scholz G, Brown N, Piersma A, Brady M, Clemann N, Huuskonen H, Paillard F, Bremer S, Becker K, Spielmann H (2000) Development of prediction models for three in vitro embryotoxicity tests in an ECVAM validation study. Vitro Mol Toxicol 13(1): 51–66Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Buesen R, Genschow E, Slawik B, Visan A, Spielmann H, Luch A, Seiler A (2009) Embryonic stem cell test remastered: comparison between the validated EST and the new molecular FACS-EST for assessing developmental toxicity in vitro. Toxicol Sci 108(2):389–400PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zur Nieden NI, Ruf LJ, Kempka G, Hildebrand H, Ahr HJ (2001) Molecular markers in embryonic stem cells. Toxicol In Vitro 15:455–461PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zur Nieden NI, Davis LA, Rancourt DE (2010) Comparing three novel endpoints for developmental osteotoxicity in the embryonic stem cell test. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 247(2):91–97PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zur Nieden NI, Davis LA, Rancourt DE (2010) Monolayer cultivation of osteoprogenitors shortens duration of the embryonic stem cell test while reliably predicting developmental osteotoxicity. Toxicology 277(1–3):66–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Adler S, Pellizzer C, Hareng L, Hartung T, Bremer S (2008) First steps in establishing a developmental toxicity test method based on human embryonic stem cells. Toxicol In Vitro 22(1):200–211PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hackenberg U, Bartling H (1959) Messen und Rechnen im pharmakologischen Laboratorium mit einem speziellen Zahlensystem (WL24-System). Arch Exp Pathol Pharmakol 235:437–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Livak KJ, Schmittgen TD (2001) Analysis of relative gene expression data using real-time quantitative PCR and the 2(-Delta Delta C(T)) method. Methods 25(4):402–408PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Béatrice Kuske
    • 1
  • Polina Y. Pulyanina
    • 1
  • Nicole I. zur Nieden
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Cell Biology and Neuroscience, College of Natural and Agricultural SciencesUniversity of California RiversideRiversideUSA
  2. 2.Stem Cell Center , College of Natural and Agricultural SciencesUniversity of California RiversideRiversideUSA

Personalised recommendations