4.7 Article

An experimental platform using human intestinal epithelial cell lines to differentiate between hazardous and non-hazardous proteins

Journal

FOOD AND CHEMICAL TOXICOLOGY
Volume 92, Issue -, Pages 75-87

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fct.2016.04.003

Keywords

Protein toxins; Intestinal epithelial cells; Cytotoxicity

Funding

  1. DuPont Pioneer

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Human intestinal epithelial cell lines (T84, Caco-2, and HCT-8) grown on permeable Transwell (TM) filters serve as models of the gastrointestinal barrier. In this study, this in vitro model system was evaluated for effectiveness at distinguishing between hazardous and non-hazardous proteins. Indicators of cytotoxicity (LDH release, MTT conversion), monolayer barrier integrity ([H-3]-inulin flux, horseradish peroxidase flux, trans-epithelial electrical resistance [TEER]), and inflammation (IL-8, IL-6 release) were monitored following exposure to hazardous or non-hazardous proteins. The hazardous proteins examined include streptolysin 0 (from Streptococcus pyogenes), Clostridium difficile Toxins A and B, heat-labile toxin from enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli, listeriolysin 0 (from Listeria monocytogenes), melittin (from bee venom), and mastoparan (from wasp venom). Non-hazardous proteins included bovine and porcine serum albumin, bovine fibronectin, and ribulose bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase (RuBisco) from spinach. Food allergenic proteins bovine milk beta-lactoglobulin and peanut Ara h 2 were also tested as was the anti nutritive food protein wheat germ agglutinin. Results demonstrated that this model system effectively distinguished between hazardous and non-hazardous proteins through combined analysis of multiple cells lines and assays. This experimental strategy may represent a useful adjunct to multi-component analysis of proteins with unknown hazard profiles. (C) 2016 DuPont Pioneer. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available