4.5 Article

Maximizing the relevance and reproducibility of A549 cell culture using FBS-free media

期刊

TOXICOLOGY IN VITRO
卷 83, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.tiv.2022.105423

关键词

In vitro techniques; Cell culture; Reagents; Fetal bovine serum; FBS; Chemically defined media

资金

  1. VEGALI
  2. FluoGut [INTER/ANR/18/12545362]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The research demonstrated successful transition of A549 cells from FBS-containing to FBS-free media, showing differences in cellular characteristics between the two FBS-free media.
Scientists are using in vitro methods to answer important research questions and implementing strategies to maximize the reliability and human relevance of these methods. One strategy is to replace the use of fetal bovine serum (FBS)-an undefined and variable mixture of biomolecules-in cell culture media with chemically defined or xeno-free medium. In this study, A549 cells, a human lung alveolar-like cell line commonly used in respiratory research, were transitioned from a culture medium containing FBS to media without FBS. A successful transition was determined based on analysis of cell morphology and functionality. Following transition to commercially available CnT-Prime Airway (CELLnTEC) or X-VIVOTM 10 (Lonza) medium, the cells were characterized by microscopic evaluation and calculation of doubling time. Their genotype, morphology, and functionality were assessed by monitoring the expression of gene markers for lung cell types, surfactant production, cytokine release, the presence of multilamellar bodies, and cell viability following sodium dodecyl sulphate exposure. Our results showed that A549 cells successfully transitioned to FBS-free media under submerged and air-liquid interface conditions. Cells grown in X-VIVOTM 10 medium mimicked cellular characteristics of FBSsupplemented media while those grown in CnT-Prime Airway medium demonstrated characteristics possibly more reflective of normal human alveolar epithelial cells.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据