Research Article
Cytotoxic Effects of Some Common Organic Solvents on MCF-7,
RAW-264.7 and Human Umbilical Vein Endothelial Cells
*Corresponding author: Hosein Ghafoori, Department of Biology, University of Guilan, Rasht, IR Iran. Tel/Fax: +98-1333333647, Email: h.ghafoori@guilan.ac.ir
Abstract
Background: Organic
solvents are widely used in cell biology experiments. Despite
increasing the solubility, they have some moderate toxic effects.
Therefore, selecting the appropriate solvent along with the use of
suitable concentration insures the accuracy and reliability of
experimental results.
Objectives: The
current study aimed to examine the cytotoxic effects of some organic
solvents on various cell models including MCF-7, RAW-264.7 and human
umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVEC).
Materials and Methods: To
evaluate the cytotoxicity effect of common organic solvents on the
MCF-7, RAW-264.7 and HUVEC cells, multi-table tournament (MTT)
colorimetric assay, the widely used and validated cytotoxicity test was
applied. For this purpose, the selected cells were treated with
different concentrations (0, 0.1%, 0.5%, 1%, 1.5%, 2%, 3% and 5% v/v) of
four most commonly used organic solvents (acetone, ethanol, dimethyl
sulfoxide (DMSO) and dimethylformamide (DMF) and then subjected to MTT
experiment.
Results: According
to the obtained results, the cytotoxicity increased significantly with
increasing the concentration of all four solvents compared to that of
the control group. Studies with MCF-7, RAW-264.7 and HUVEC suggested
that acetone, ethanol and DMSO at concentrations of 0.1% and 0.5%, had
little or no toxicity, whereas higher concentrations inhibited the
growth of all three cells. Compared with other three solvents, DMF
displayed rather greater toxicity. Based on the results, proliferation
of MCF-7, RAW-264.7 and HUVEC cells were inhibited by all used organic
solvents, dose dependently.
Conclusions: Thus,
the background experimental error can be reduced remarkably by maximal
concentration of 0.5% ethanol, acetone and DMSO and 0.1% DMF in the
final treatment medium.
Keywords: Cytotoxicity; MCF-7; RAW-264.7; HUVEC; Organic Solvents
1. Background
Organic solvents are often used as a vehicle to dissolve hydrophobic compounds in cell biology experiments (1-4).
Besides strong solubility characteristics, they should be compatible
with the culture medium without toxic effects on cells, since
experiments with cell based systems are performed in growth medium (2, 3).
Some of the commonly used organic solvents such as acetone (Log P, -
0.24), ethanol (Log P, - 0.31), dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) (Log P, -1.35)
and dimethyl formamide (DMF) (Log P, -1.01) were selected in the
current study. Based on reports from in vitro studies, possible toxic
effects of these organic solvents are expected (5-7). Several authors have reported interference of frequently used solvents with cellular based assays (8, 9).
Therefore, the solvent should be selected to optimize the solubility of
poor water-soluble compound without adversely affecting the assay
conducts, such as cell growth (10).
Thus, the cell growth inhibition and cytotoxicity study of organic
solvents are very essential and necessary. A number of methods including
colorimetric and fluorometric are currently used in the fields of
toxicology and pharmacology to determine cellular viability following in
vitro exposure to compounds (11). Each method has specific advantages, disadvantages and limitations and the suitable method is the users’ choice (12).
To select the appropriate solvent with suitable concentrations, the
most standardized and validated test to estimate the cytotoxicity of
compounds towards cells is MTT test. This assay is dependent on the
ability of live but not dead cells to reduce significant amounts of
water-soluble yellow MTT dye to insoluble violet formazan crystals,
which can be measured by a colorimetric method (13). The technique is used in a number of laboratories and various modifications are introduced (14).
Some studies have demonstrated that various cell lines show differences
in their degree of sensitivity to the same solvent. Therefore, besides
the appropriate solvent the other factor to be evaluated is the
solubility power of solvent with respect to the specific type of cell
line (6, 8).
It
is hardly possible to identify a recent discovery that has not used
cell line models at some point during development, and cancer cell lines
are the most popular ones (15).
Cancer is one of the major causes of human death worldwide and the
number of affected people is increasing. Breast cancer is one of the
important causes of mortality in females (16) and in Iran ranks first among cancers diagnosed in females comprising 24.4% of all malignancies (17). By far, MCF-7 human breast cancer cell line is the most widely used breast cancer cell line (18),
which is useful for in vitro breast cancer studies because it has
retained several ideal characteristics particular to the mammary
epithelium (16). The usefulness of the MCF-7 cell line as an investigative tool led to its widespread adoption in laboratories (19).
Another model system selected to carry out this study was the RAW264.7
mouse macrophage cell line, which is extensively used as a reliable cell
model for inflammation research (20).
They are also used to study macrophage cellular physiology because of
their ease of culture, rapid growth rate and phenotypic resemblance to
primary macrophages (21). To date, a PubMed retrieval lists over 1500 publications that used the RAW264.7 cell line in the reported research work (22).
The third selected cell model was human umbilical vein endothelial cell
(HUVEC) line which is commonly used as a laboratory model system for
various physiological and pathological processes, especially in
angiogenesis research (23). It also provides a classic model system to study many aspects of endothelial functions and diseases (24).
However, compared with other types of human endothelial cells, HUVEC
offers several important advantages for in vitro studies. In particular,
they are easier to harvest and maintain in culture and have a greater
inherent and useful passage number in vitro. Therefore, the HUVEC model
is valuable to investigate functions of human endothelial cells and
their interactions with other cell types (25).
2. Objectives
Thus, the current paper
studied the effects of common organic solvents with different
concentrations towards the most popular cells: MCF-7, RAW-264.7 and
HUVEC, which are cancer, macrophage and endothelial cells, respectively.
On the other hand, in the context of cell culture-based testing of
anti-proliferative property of compounds, little solvent evaluation is
carried out so far. To the best of the authors` knowledge this is the
first study to explore toxic effects of common solvents on widely used
cell line models. Thus, the study could provide reference for optimizing
solvent selection with regard to suitable concentrations.
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Reagents
All culture media were obtained from Gibco (Invitrogen, Carlsbad,
CA, USA) and 3-(4, 5 dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2, 5 diphenyltetrazolium
bromide (MTT) was provided by Sigma-Aldrich, USA. All solvents, acetone,
ethanol, dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) and dimethylformamide (DMF) were of
reagent grade and purchased from Merck, Germany. The purity of all
chemicals used was in the range of 96% - 99.9%.
3.2. Cell Culture
MCF-7, RAW-264.7 and HUVEC cells were provided by the Iranian biological resource center (IBRCTM,
Tehran, Iran) and grown in the Dulbecco’s modified eagle medium (DMEM)
supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS) and 1%
penicillin/streptomycin. All the cells were maintained at 37°C in a
humidified atmosphere of 5% CO2 throughout the study and routinely grown in 25 cm2
culture flasks and trypsinized to harvest after attaining confluence.
Meanwhile, some differences were considered regarding trypsinization
procedure for RAW-264.7 semi-adherent cells versus two other adherent
cells. Following centrifugation (1300 g for 7 minutes), cells were
re-suspended in the culture medium and used for the following study.
3.3. Cytotoxicity Test-MTT Assay
To evaluate the cytotoxicity effect of acetone, ethanol, dimethyl
sulfoxide (DMSO) and dimethyl formamide (DMF) on three different cell
lines, viability tests were applied using MTT colorimetric assay.
Briefly, all cell lines were seeded in 96-well plates at a density of 20
× 103 cells per well and then incubated at 37°C in 5% CO2 to
allow cell attachment. The medium was removed and replaced with fresh
medium containing various concentrations (0, 0.1%, 0.5%, 1%, 2%, 3% and
5% v/v) of four organic solvents. After treatment for 24 hours, 10 μL
MTT (5 mg/mL) was added to each well and the plate was further
incubated. Four hours later, all remaining supernatant were removed and
100 μL of DMSO was added to each well to dissolve the resulting formazan
crystals. Finally, absorbance was read at 570 nm using the
enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) microplate reader (BioTek,
USA) and the cell viability percentage was calculated using the
equation: (mean OD of treated cells/mean OD of control cells) × 100. The
percentages of cell viability were used to determine the IC50
values, which is the concentration of a chemical inhibiting 50% of the
cell growth compared with that of the untreated control cultures.
3.4. Statistical Analysis
Each concentration was assayed in triplicates (n = 3) and
repeated in two independent experiments. Statistical analyses were
performed by SPSS statistical software (version 20.0, SPSS). Values with
P < 0.05 were considered as statistically significant. Data were
analyzed using one-way ANOVA followed by the Dunnett test and expressed
as mean ± SD.
4. Results
The cytotoxicity of four solvents towards MCF-7, RAW-264.7 and HUVEC cells was determined by MTT assay. Results are shown in Figure 1.
The data indicate that the rate of cell viability decreased
significantly (P < 0.05) with increasing concentrations of all
examined solvents compared to those of the control group and
cytotoxicity increased dose dependently. In the current study, the
absorbance of each experiment was similar among the three parallel
experiments. Overall results showed that the inhibitory effect of
solvents was similar with slight differences between the three cell
lines. According to the results, dimethylformamide (DMF) displayed the
highest cytotoxic effect among the solvents, followed by decreasing
order-DMSO, ethanol and acetone. It was found that, among the selected
solvents, acetone exhibited the least cytotoxicity against different
cells. While the concentration of acetone was 0.1%, 0.5%, 1% and 1.5%
(v/v), the corresponding cell viability rate observed in HUVEC cells
were 98%, 95%, 94% and 92%, respectively. In addition, concerning MCF-7
and RAW-264.7 cells, the viability rate did not exceed ~80% at doses up
to 1% and 1.5 %, respectively (Figure 1A).
Also, the effect of ethanol was very similar to that of acetone in the
equivalent dose range and the IC50 values for both solvents were more
than 5% for all of the three cells (Figure 1B).
The cytotoxicity of DMSO was a little greater than those of acetone and
ethanol. However, little cytotoxicity of DMSO towards cells was
observed up to 0.1% with cell viability rate of more than 90%; whereas
it dramatically increased at concentrations above 0.5% (Figure 1C).
Interestingly, DMF presented a great cytotoxicity and descended rapidly
at a very low concentration in such a way that RAW-264.7, MCF-7 and
HUVEC cells at the highest concentration (5%), exhibited very low cell
viability rate, about 11%, 12% and 16%, respectively. Furthermore,
viability rates of acetone, ethanol and DMSO up to 0.5% were more than
~80%; whereas DMF at equivalent concentrations showed great
cytotoxicity, approximately less than 70%. Therefore, DMF displayed the
most cytotoxicity towards all different cells (Figure 1D).
|
Figure 1.
Cell Viability Percentage of MCF-7, RAW-264.7, and HUVEC Cells Exposed to Different Solvents
|
Accordingly, there was no obvious difference in IC50 value of these solvents between RAW-264.7, MCF-7 and HUVEC cells. In all cells, IC50
values of DMSO and DMF were 1.8% - 1.9% (v/v) and 1.1% - 1.2% (v/v),
respectively. Also, in the case of acetone and ethanol, the calculated
IC50 values were more than the examined concentrations i e,
5% (v/v). Obviously, among the solvents used, DMF exerted the maximum
inhibitory effect on cells. Therefore, it seems that acetone, ethanol
and even DMSO could be solvents of choice acceptable to be used at
concentrations < 0.5% (v/v) towards the examined cells and possibly
for other cell lines.
5. Discussion
Cell culture systems
including cell lines of human or murine origin are extensively used to
study the effects of pharmacological relevant compounds and natural
products (3). Since many of these compounds are water-insoluble, the use of organic solvent is necessary (4). However, a common concern when introducing organic solvents to the growth medium is toxic effects of the solvent on cells (2, 5, 8, 9).
In addition, using unsuitable solvents might cause the loss of
biological activities in compounds; therefore, it may seriously affect
the outcome of the experiment (1, 3).
Thus, the current paper investigated the cytotoxic effects of four
commonly used organic solvents against three different cell culture
systems: MCF-7, RAW-264.7 and HUVEC cell lines. The study aimed to
select suitable solvent to dissolve hydrophobic compounds. The selected
solvents should have the advantages of high solubility power,
compatibility with the media and no adverse impact on cells. For this
purpose, the cytotoxicity of acetone, ethanol, DMSO and DMF against
MCF-7, RAW.264.7 and HUVEC cell lines was evaluated by the widely used
MTT assay. Results indicated that all the solvents exerted cytotoxic
action dose dependently; since the cell viability percentage of the
three different cell lines decreased significantly by increasing the
concentration of solvents compared to that of the control. However,
little differences were observed between the three cell lines.
Therefore, it seems that acetone, ethanol and DMSO might be more
compatible solvent vehicles toward all three cells, respectively; while
DMF is the worst owing to its greater cytotoxicity. In addition, the
effects of ethanol and acetone were nearly similar with slight
differences between the cells.
Interestingly, the obtained results
were consistent with the Q3C solvent classification. According to Q3C
guideline, solvents are divided into four classes (1-4).
Acetone, ethanol and DMSO were placed in the safest category, class 3
solvents. Solvents in class 3 may be regarded as less toxic with lower
risk to human health. While, DMF was placed in class 2 solvents. The use
of solvents in class 2 should be limited in pharmaceutical products
because of their inherent toxicity (26).
Acetone is employed as a solvent for compounds used to study the
appearance of malignancy in tissue cells. Although, little reports could
be found in the literature concerning the effects of acetone upon cells
growth in vitro, it is demonstrated that acetone changes the
permeability of the cell membranes (27).
The current study results clearly indicated that acetone was a
non-toxic solvent since it could not inhibit the growth of the studied
cells by 50% at examined ranges from 0.1% to 5% (v/v). Thus, it seems to
be the most suitable solvent to dissolve the hydrophobic compounds in
such ells. Ethanol is also used as a solvent for hydrophobic compounds
in experimental studies (28). Previous studies demonstrated that ethanol modulates the cell growth and suppresses cell proliferation dose dependently (29).
It is also evident that ethanol regulates apoptosis or necrosis by
generating reactive oxygen species (ROS) or inducing transient arrest of
cell division (30).
Although many reports describe the cellular effects of ethanol at high
concentrations, only a few relate its effects at low concentrations (31). In the present study, ethanol exhibited somewhat less cytotoxicity towards cells following acetone and the IC50
values for each cell were higher than 5% (v/v). This reflects its low
cytotoxicity as well as high safety on the examined cells. Dimethyl
sulfoxide (DMSO) is a small amphiphilic molecule, which is widely
employed in cell biology as a cryoprotectant, hydroxyl radical
scavenger, cell fusogen and more importantly as an effective penetration
enhancer; since it is known to enhance cell membrane permeability of
compounds (32, 33).
It also is frequently used as an efficient solvent in biological
studies to dissolve hydrophobic compounds and as a vehicle for compound
therapy (34). This characteristic, in addition to its low toxicity, has led to its ubiquitous use and widespread application (35). A great number of toxicological and medical studies are performed with DMSO to determine the safety of this chemical (10, 27).
Although clinically beneficial in some situations, DMSO can have some
adverse side effects. It is reported that DMSO could cause severe cell
damage through interacting with the metabolism and membrane of cells (36).
However, little is known about its potential cytotoxic side effects on
different cell lines. In addition, the effects of DMSO on cellular
function are studied in a large number of cell types with variable
results (34-37). Several studies indicated that proliferation of various cells was obviously inhibited by DMSO at different concentrations (38).
The current study suggested that the cytotoxicity of DMSO was only
little greater than that of acetone and ethanol, especially at very low
doses i e, < 0.1%, wherein DMSO exhibited the least toxicity among
other solvents. However, the cytotoxicity was greater with increasing
the concentrations. Also, according to the current study results, the IC50
values of DMSO on three diverse cells were very similar and about 1.1% -
1.2% (v/v) for all cells. Finally, DMF is a type of polar solvent which
causes morphological changes in the cells as well as alterations in
their growth properties (39, 40).
It is also a potent differentiation inducing agent with growth
inhibitory activity in tumor cells, yet its effect on some cancer cells
remains unclear (40, 41).
The obtained data obviously revealed that, compared to other three
solvents, DMF exhibited the highest cytotoxicity and inhibited the
proliferation of cells most effectively, while acetone and ethanol did
not demonstrate such prominent effects on cellular growth. Since cell
based assays should be validated based on cytotoxic effects of solvents
used, the current study highlighted safety concerns of using some
preferred organic solvents in biological assays. Some researchers
recommended that to solubilize compounds, it is better to compute
absolute solvent final concentrations and include an untreated control
group in addition to solvent vehicle control to check for its toxicity (10). Also, some others emphasize on the need to lower the concentrations of solvents in toxicology tests as far as possible (3, 42).
5.1. Conclusions
Acetone was the most favorable solvent to dissolve the compound
in cell growth in vitro and is a non-toxic solvent, since it
demonstrated the least growth inhibitory effects on cells with an
average of 85% cell viability in volume (0.1% - 1% v/v). Therefore, it
could be concluded that acetone, ethanol and even DMSO, at
concentrations < 0.5% (v/v) might be compatible solvent vehicles
towards the examined cells.
Finally, a simple approach is
presented to select a suitable solubilizing agent that would enable
testing the anti-proliferative activity of a hydrophobic compound
according to the cell type. The current study observations are important
when selecting an appropriate solvent in cell based studies for MCF-7,
Raw-264.7 and HUVEC cell lines.
Acknowledgments
Authors appreciate the University of Guilan for the partial financial support of the study.
Footnotes
References
-
1.
Vandhana S, Deepa PR, Aparna G, Jayanthi U, Krishnakumar S. Evaluation
of suitable solvents for testing the anti-proliferative activity of
triclosan - a hydrophobic drug in cell culture. Indian J Biochem Biophys. 2010;47(3):166-71. [PubMed]
-
2.
Wu S, Li F, Ma X, Wang M, Zhang P,
Zhong R. Cytotoxicity of Eight Organic Solvents Towards Balb/3T3 and 293T Cells. Wuhan: IEEE; 2011. [DOI]
-
3.
Timm
M, Saaby L, Moesby L, Hansen EW. Considerations regarding use of
solvents in in vitro cell based assays. Cytotechnology. 2013;65(5):887-94. [DOI] [PubMed]
-
4.
Jain
PT, Pento JT. A vehicle for the evaluation of hydrophobic compounds in
cell culture. Res Commun Chem Pathol Pharmacol. 1991;74(1):105-16. [PubMed]
-
5.
Zapor L, Skowron J, Golofit-Szymczak M. The cytotoxicity of some organic
solvents on isolated hepatocytes in monolayer culture. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2002;8(1):121-9. [PubMed]
-
6.
Holmberg B, Malmfors T. The cytotoxicity of some organic solvents. Environ Res. 1974;7(2):183-92. [DOI]
-
7.
Qin
YZ, Zhong XH, Chen GX, Zhao DW, Yang DM, Xiong XY. [Effects of organic
solvents on proliferation of Hela cells line]. Zhong Yao Cai. 2011;34(4):563-6. [PubMed]
-
8.
Forman S, Kas J, Fini F, Steinberg M, Ruml T. The effect of different
solvents on the ATP/ADP content and growth properties of HeLa cells. J Biochem Mol Toxicol. 1999;13(1):11-5. [PubMed]
-
9.
Adler S, Pellizzer C, Paparella M, Hartung T, Bremer S. The effects of
solvents on embryonic stem cell differentiation. Toxicol In Vitro. 2006;20(3):265-71. [DOI] [PubMed]
-
10.
Galvao J, Davis B, Tilley M, Normando E, Duchen MR, Cordeiro MF.
Unexpected low-dose toxicity of the universal solvent DMSO. FASEB J. 2014;28(3):1317-30. [DOI] [PubMed]
-
11.
Bopp
SK, Lettieri T. Comparison of four different colorimetric and
fluorometric cytotoxicity assays in a zebrafish liver cell line. BMC Pharmacol. 2008;8:8. [DOI] [PubMed]
-
12.
Fernandes MJB, Limas C, Rossi MH, Gonçales E, Simoni IC. Cytotoxicity of
subfractions and compounds from Polymnia sonchifolia. Brazilian J Microbiol. 2005;36(4):338-41.
-
13.
Mosmann T. Rapid colorimetric assay for cellular growth and survival:
application to proliferation and cytotoxicity assays. J Immunol Methods. 1983;65(1-2):55-63. [PubMed]
-
14.
Denizot F, Lang R. Rapid colorimetric assay for cell growth and
survival. Modifications to the tetrazolium dye procedure giving improved
sensitivity and reliability. J Immunol Methods. 1986;89(2):271-7. [PubMed]
-
15.
Keen JC. Breast Cancer Cell Line Development and Authentication.
INTECH Open Access Publisher; 2011. ISBN 9533077662.
-
16.
Siegel R, DeSantis C, Jemal A. Colorectal cancer statistics, 2014. Cancer J Clin. 2014;64(2):104-17.
-
17.
Taghavi A, Fazeli Z, Vahedi M, Baghestani AR, Pourhoseingholi A,
Barzegar F, et al. Increased trend of breast cancer mortality in Iran. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2012;13(1):367-70. [PubMed]
-
18.
Holliday DL, Speirs V. Choosing the right cell line for breast cancer
research. Breast Cancer Res. 2011;13(4):215. [DOI] [PubMed]
-
19.
Simstein R, Burow M, Parker A, Weldon C, Beckman B. Apoptosis,
chemoresistance, and breast cancer: insights from the MCF-7 cell model
system. Exp Biol Med (Maywood). 2003;228(9):995-1003. [PubMed]
-
20.
Zhai
Z, Solco A, Wu L, Wurtele ES, Kohut ML, Murphy PA, et al. Echinacea
increases arginase activity and has anti-inflammatory properties in RAW
264.7 macrophage cells, indicative of alternative macrophage activation.
J Ethnopharmacol. 2009;122(1):76-85. [DOI] [PubMed]
-
21.
Maurya MR, Gupta S, Li X, Fahy E, Dinasarapu AR, Sud M, et al. Analysis
of inflammatory and lipid metabolic networks across RAW264.7 and
thioglycolate-elicited macrophages. J Lipid Res. 2013;54(9):2525-42. [DOI] [PubMed]
-
22.
Hartley JW, Evans LH, Green KY, Naghashfar Z, Macias AR, Zerfas PM, et
al. Expression of infectious murine leukemia viruses by RAW264.7 cells, a
potential complication for studies with a widely used mouse macrophage
cell line. Retrovirology. 2008;5:1. [DOI] [PubMed]
-
23.
Bouis D, Hospers GA, Meijer C, Molema G, Mulder NH. Endothelium in
vitro: a review of human vascular endothelial cell lines for blood
vessel-related research. Angiogenesis. 2001;4(2):91-102. [PubMed]
-
24.
Rhim
JS, Tsai WP, Chen ZQ, Chen Z, Van Waes C, Burger AM, et al. A human
vascular endothelial cell model to study angiogenesis and tumorigenesis.
Carcinogenesis. 1998;19(4):673-81. [PubMed]
-
25.
Park
HJ, Zhang Y, Georgescu SP, Johnson KL, Kong D, Galper JB. Human
umbilical vein endothelial cells and human dermal microvascular
endothelial cells offer new insights into the relationship between lipid
metabolism and angiogenesis. Stem Cell Rev. 2006;2(2):93-102. [DOI] [PubMed]
-
26.
Grodowska K, Parczewski A. Organic solvents in the pharmaceutical
industry. Acta Pol Pharm. 2010;67(1):3-12. [PubMed]
-
27.
Pace
DM, Elliott A. Effects of acetone and phenol on established cell lines
cultivated in vitro. Cancer Res. 1962;22:107-12. [PubMed]
-
28.
Bebarova M, Matejovic P, Pasek M, Ohlidalova D, Jansova D, Simurdova M,
et al. Effect of ethanol on action potential and ionic membrane currents
in rat ventricular myocytes. Acta Physiol (Oxf). 2010;200(4):301-14. [DOI] [PubMed]
-
29.
Klein RF, Fausti KA, Carlos AS. Ethanol inhibits human osteoblastic cell
proliferation. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 1996;20(3):572-8. [PubMed]
-
30.
Mikami K, Haseba T, Ohno Y. Ethanol induces transient arrest of cell
division (G2 + M block) followed by G0/G1 block: dose effects of short-
and longer-term ethanol exposure on cell cycle and cell functions. Alcohol Alcohol. 1997;32(2):145-52. [PubMed]
-
31.
Tapani E, Taavitsainen M, Lindros K, Vehmas T, Lehtonen E. Toxicity of
ethanol in low concentrations. Experimental evaluation in cell culture. Acta Radiol. 1996;37(6):923-6. [PubMed]
-
32.
Santos NC, Figueira-Coelho J, Martins-Silva J, Saldanha C.
Multidisciplinary utilization of dimethyl sulfoxide: pharmacological,
cellular, and molecular aspects. Biochem Pharmacol. 2003;65(7):1035-41. [PubMed]
-
33.
Gurtovenko AA, Anwar J. Modulating the structure and properties of cell
membranes: the molecular mechanism of action of dimethyl sulfoxide. J Phys Chem B. 2007;111(35):10453-60. [DOI] [PubMed]
-
34.
Qi
W, Ding D, Salvi RJ. Cytotoxic effects of dimethyl sulphoxide (DMSO) on
cochlear organotypic cultures. Hear Res. 2008;236(1-2):52-60. [DOI] [PubMed]
-
35.
Rodriguez-Burford C, Oelschlager DK, Talley LI, Barnes MN, Partridge EE,
Grizzle WE. The use of dimethylsulfoxide as a vehicle in cell culture
experiments using ovarian carcinoma cell lines. Biotech Histochem. 2003;78(1):17-21. [PubMed]
-
36.
Malinin TI, Perry VP. Toxicity of dimethyl sulfoxide on HeLa cells. Cryobiology. 1967;4(2):90-6. [PubMed]
-
37.
Da
Violante G, Zerrouk N, Richard I, Provot G, Chaumeil JC, Arnaud P.
Evaluation of the cytotoxicity effect of dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) on
Caco2/TC7 colon tumor cell cultures. Biol Pharm Bull. 2002;25(12):1600-3. [PubMed]
-
38.
Eter
N, Spitznas M. DMSO mimics inhibitory effect of thalidomide on
choriocapillary endothelial cell proliferation in culture. Br J Ophthalmol. 2002;86(11):1303-5. [PubMed]
-
39.
Dexter DL, Barbosa JA, Calabresi P. N,N-dimethylformamide-induced
alteration of cell culture characteristics and loss of tumorigenicity in
cultured human colon carcinoma cells. Cancer Res. 1979;39(3):1020-5. [PubMed]
-
40.
Li
XN, Du ZW, Huang Q, Wu JQ. Growth-inhibitory and
differentiation-inducing activity of dimethylformamide in cultured human
malignant glioma cells. Neurosurgery. 1997;40(6):1250-8. discussion 1258-9 [PubMed]
-
41.
Guilbaud NF, Gas N, Dupont MA, Valette A. Effects of
differentiation-inducing agents on maturation of human MCF-7 breast
cancer cells. J Cell Physiol. 1990;145(1):162-72. [DOI] [PubMed]
-
42.
Turner C, Sawle A, Fenske M, Cossins A. Implications of the solvent
vehicles dimethylformamide and dimethylsulfoxide for establishing
transcriptomic endpoints in the zebrafish embryo toxicity test. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2012;31(3):593-604. [DOI] [PubMed]