Cancer Research The Future of Cancer Research: Science and Patient Impact  AACR Conference on Molecular Diagnostics - 2008
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cancer Research Clinical Cancer Research
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
Molecular Cancer Research Cancer Prevention Research
Cancer Prevention Journals Portal Cancer Reviews Online
Annual Meeting Education Book Meeting Abstracts Online

[Cancer Research 49, 1075-1084, March 1, 1989]
© 1989 American Association for Cancer Research

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Butterworth, B. E.
Right arrow Articles by Strom, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Butterworth, B. E.
Right arrow Articles by Strom, S.

Use of Primary Cultures of Human Hepatocytes in Toxicology Studies1

Byron E. Butterworth2, Tracey Smith-Oliver, Lynn Earle, David J. Loury, Russell D. White, David J. Doolittle, Peter K. Working, Russell C. Cattley, Randy Jirtle, George Michalopoulos and Stephen Strom

Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709 [B. E. B., T. S-O., L. E., D. J. L., R. D. W., D. J. D., P. K. W., R. C. C.], and Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina 27710 [R. J., G. M., S. S.]

Often results from toxicological studies using rodent models cannot be directly extrapolated to probable effects in human beings. In order to examine the genotoxic potential of chemicals in human liver cells, a human hepatocyte DNA repair assay has been defined. Procedures were optimized to prepare primary cultures of human hepatocytes from discarded surgical material. On eight different occasions human hepatocyte cultures of sufficient viability to measure DNA repair were successfully prepared by collagenase perfusion techniques. The cells were allowed to attach to plastic or collagen substrata for periods of 1.5 to 24 h and subsequently incubated with [3H]thymidine and test chemicals for periods of 18 to 24 h. Chemically induced DNA repair, measured as unscheduled DNA synthesis, was quantitated autoradiographically. The following compounds were tested: 2-acetylaminofluorene, aflatoxin B1, 2-aminobenzyl alcohol, aniline, benzo(a)pyrene, carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, 2,4-diaminotoluene, 2,6-diaminotoluene, di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, dimethylnitrosamine, 1,6-dinitropyrene, 2,4-dinitrotoluene, 2,6-dinitrotoluene, methyl chloride, 5-methylchrysene, mono(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, 2-methyl-2-P-(1,2,3,4-tetrahydro-1-naphthyl)phenoxypropionic acid (nafenopin), ß-naphthylamine, nitrobenzene, 2-nitrobenzyl alcohol, 2-nitrotoluene, 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, unleaded gasoline, and 4-chloro-6-(2,3-xylidino)-2-pyrimidinylthioacetic acid (Wy-14,643). In only one of eight cases did some of the chemicals generally regarded as genotoxic fail to give a positive response. For purposes of comparison, all test chemicals were evaluated in the in vitro rat hepatocyte DNA repair assay. Individual-to-indivdual variation in the DNA repair response was far greater for the human cultures than for cultures derived from rats. For only three chemicals was there a qualitative difference in the response between the rodent and the human cells; ß-naphthylamine was positive in the rat but in none of the human cultures examined, whereas the opposite was seen for 2,6-diaminotoluene and 5-methylchrysene. Clofibric acid, mono(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, and Wy-14,643 induced enzymes indicative of peroxisomal proliferation in primary rat hepatocyte cultures, but not in two human hepatocyte cultures. These results indicate that, in general, the in vitro rat hepatocyte DNA repair assay is a valid model for predicting potential genotoxic effects in human beings. However, rodent hepatocytes may not be appropriate for assessing the potential of chemicals to elicit nongenotoxic effects in human beings such as the induction of hepatocyte peroxisomal proliferation.

1 This work (G. M.) was supported in part by Grant CA30241 from the NIH.

2 To whom requests for reprints should be addressed, at Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology, P. O. Box 12137, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709.

Received 8/15/88. Revised 11/28/88. Accepted 12/ 1/88.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Toxicol PatholHome page
D. M. Dambach, B. A. Andrews, and F. Moulin
New Technologies and Screening Strategies for Hepatotoxicity: Use of In Vitro Models
Toxicol Pathol, January 1, 2005; 33(1): 17 - 26.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Drug Metab. Dispos.Home page
R. A. Graham, A. Downey, D. Mudra, L. Krueger, K. Carroll, C. Chengelis, A. Madan, and A. Parkinson
In Vivo and in Vitro Induction of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes in Beagle Dogs
Drug Metab. Dispos., November 1, 2002; 30(11): 1206 - 1213.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Toxicol PatholHome page
D. A. Groneberg, C. Grosse-Siestrup, and A. Fischer
In Vitro Models to Study Hepatotoxicity
Toxicol Pathol, April 1, 2002; 30(3): 394 - 399.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Toxicol Ind HealthHome page
Regulations and Advisories
Toxicology and Industrial Health, September 1, 1999; 15(8): 718 - 742.
[PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cancer Research Clinical Cancer Research
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
Molecular Cancer Research Cancer Prevention Research
Cancer Prevention Journals Portal Cancer Reviews Online
Annual Meeting Education Book Meeting Abstracts Online
Copyright © 1989 by the American Association for Cancer Research.