4.5 Article

Assay conditions can influence the outcome of cytotoxicity tests of nanomaterials: Better assay characterization is needed to compare studies

Journal

TOXICOLOGY IN VITRO
Volume 24, Issue 2, Pages 620-629

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.tiv.2009.10.007

Keywords

Nanotoxicology; Cytotoxicity; Carbon nanotubes

Categories

Funding

  1. European Commission [NMP2-CT-2005-515843]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Reliable in vitro studies that generate consistent toxicity data on nanomaterials on a high-throughput scale will be of invaluable significance in the next few years. Aim: In this study, we checked the influence of several steps of the experimental design on the outcome: we investigated the role of cell density, viability assay and particle dispersion method, including the influence of serum and effect of a surfactant (Tween 80). Methods: The dose-response curve was assessed for ground multiwalled carbon nanotubes (CNT) and the silica benchmark Min-U-Sil, on lung epithelial cells (A549 cells) and macrophages (stimulated THP-1 cells). Results: The cell density used in the cytotoxicity study has an impact on the outcome: for the same concentration of Min-U-Sil, the viability of A549 cells varied from 10% to 55% with increasing cell density. Whereas foetal calf serum attenuated the cytotoxicity of Min-U-Sil, this effect was not seen for CNT. The results show how cell culture conditions can modify the outcome of a toxicological experiment, as shown in this study for Tween 80 to disperse the test agent. Conclusions: These experiments illustrates that results reported in literature can only be compared when, in addition to the use of a benchmark particle, a detailed method description is available. Therefore, more emphasis is needed on a standardized design for cytotoxicity studies. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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