2012
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-61779-867-2_9
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Primary Cell and Micromass Culture in Assessing Developmental Toxicity

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
13
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 77 publications
0
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Although animal tests are intrinsically capable of capturing complex biological processes, and often allow direct observation of adverse effects, there is widespread agreement that replacing animal tests with in silico (e.g., quantitative structure-activity relationship [QSAR] models, structural alerts), in chemico (e.g., receptor binding assays), in vitro (e.g., stem cell assays) and in vivo tests using non-protected taxa or life stages (e.g., fish embryo tests) is high on the priority list of 21 st century toxicity assessment [1]. Many non-animal-based assays, or alternatives to current whole animal test designs that require fewer animals [2], focused on reproductive and developmental toxicity have already been developed (e.g. mouse whole embryo culture, limb micromass assay, mouse embryonic stem cell assay, fish embryo test, preantral follicle culture).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although animal tests are intrinsically capable of capturing complex biological processes, and often allow direct observation of adverse effects, there is widespread agreement that replacing animal tests with in silico (e.g., quantitative structure-activity relationship [QSAR] models, structural alerts), in chemico (e.g., receptor binding assays), in vitro (e.g., stem cell assays) and in vivo tests using non-protected taxa or life stages (e.g., fish embryo tests) is high on the priority list of 21 st century toxicity assessment [1]. Many non-animal-based assays, or alternatives to current whole animal test designs that require fewer animals [2], focused on reproductive and developmental toxicity have already been developed (e.g. mouse whole embryo culture, limb micromass assay, mouse embryonic stem cell assay, fish embryo test, preantral follicle culture).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To obtain primary heart cells for MM culture, White Leghorn Chicken eggs (Henry Stewart & Co., Louth, Lincs, UK) were placed on to the auto egg turner and incubated at 38 °C in 100% relative humidity for 5 days, day 0 being defined as the day when the eggs were set in the incubator. In the chick cardiomyocyte MM culture system the 5‐day‐old chick embryo (HH stages 25–26) heart cells were cultured and treated with chemicals as previously described (Ahir and Pratten, , ; Pratten et al , ). In brief, the embryonic chick hearts were trypsinized and 20 µl of single cell suspension (3 × 10 6 cells ml –1 ) in a defined culture medium [Dulbecco minimal Eagle's medium (DMEM) supplemented with 10% heat inactivated fetal calf serum, 2 m m l ‐glutamine and 50 U ml –1 penicillin with 50 µg ml –1 streptomycin] was pipetted on to the centre of each 24‐well tissue culture plate.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There is not much evidence of work being performed on embryonic chick heart cells (cardiomyocytes) as a MM culture system. However, the system may be useful for studying embryonic developmental mechanisms and the perturbation of heart development (Ahir and Pratten, , ; Hurst et al , ; Memon and Pratten, ; Pratten et al , ), while limb buds and neural tissue (midbrain MM culture) may be used for effects on chondrogenesis and neurogenesis by teratogens (Atterwill et al , ; Wiger et al , ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Briefl y, dissociated single cells from the secondary neurospheres were plated at a density of 1.5 × 10 4 cells/well in three 96 well plates [ 23 ] and fed with a DMEM/F12/N2 culture medium for 48-72 h. At the end of the incubation time, the medium was replaced with a diff erent concentration of gabapentin (0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64 and 128 μg/ml) dissolved in DMEM/F12/N2 as a vehicle. At indicated time points (24, 48 and 72 h), for each 96 well plate the medium was aspirated and the cells were gently washed twice with 200 μl pre-warmed PBS.…”
Section: Cytotoxicity Assaymentioning
confidence: 99%