4.5 Article

The Characterization of the Human Nasal Epithelial Cell Line RPMI 2650 Under Different Culture Conditions and Their Optimization for an Appropriate in vitro Nasal Model

Journal

PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH
Volume 32, Issue 2, Pages 665-679

Publisher

SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1007/s11095-014-1494-0

Keywords

drug transporters; microscopy; nasal epithelial cell model; permeability; TEER

Funding

  1. Lek Pharmaceuticals, d.d., Sandoz Development Center Slovenia
  2. Slovenian Research Agency [P3-0108, P1-170]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose The further characterization of the cell line RPMI 2650 and the evaluation of different culture conditions for an in vitro model for nasal mucosa. Methods Cells were cultured in media MEM or A-MEM at air-liquid (A-L) or liquid-liquid (L-L) interfaces for 1 or 3 weeks. Different cryopreservation methods and cell culture techniques were evaluated with immunolabelling of junctional proteins, ultrastructural analysis using electron microscopy, transepithelial electrical resistance (TEER) measurements, permeation studies with dextran and jacalin, and gene expression profiling of 84 drug transporters. Results Cell proliferation and differentiation depended on the used medium. The established epithelia expressed occludin, claudin-1, and E-cadherin under all conditions. Cells grown at the A-L interface formed more layers and exhibited a higher TEER and lower dextran and jacalin permeability than at the L-L interface, where cells morphologically exhibited a more differentiated phenotype. The expression of ABC and SLC transporters depended on culture duration and interface. Conclusions The RPMI 2650 cells form a polarized epithelium resembling nasal mucosa. However, different culture conditions have a significant effect on cell ultrastructure, barrier integrity, and gene expression, and should be considered when using this cell line as an in vitro model for drug permeability studies and screening of nasal drug candidates.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available