Abstract
Conventional in vitro human hepatic models for drug testing are based on the use of standard cell lines derived from hepatomas or primary human hepatocytes (PHHs). Limited availability, interdonor functional variability and early phenotypic alterations in PHHs restrict their use, whilst standard cell lines such as HepG2 lack a substantial and variable set of liver‐specific functions such as CYP450 activity. Alternatives include the HepG2‐derivative C3A cells selected as a more differentiated and metabolically active hepatic phenotype. Human HepaRG cells are an alternative organotypic co‐culture model of hepatocytes and cholangiocytes reported to maintain in vivo‐like liver‐specific functions, including intact Phase I–III drug metabolism. In this study, we compared C3A and human HepaRG cells using phenotypic profiling, CYP450 activity and drug metabolism parameters to assess their value as hepatic models for pre‐clinical drug testing or therapeutics. Compared with C3As, HepaRG co‐cultures exhibit a more organotypic phenotype, including evidence of hepatic polarity with the strong expression of CYP3A4, the major isoform involved in the metabolism of over 60% of marketed drugs. Significantly greater CYP450 activity and expression of CYP1A2, CYP2E1 and CYP3A4 genes in HepaRG cells (comparable with that of human liver tissue) was demonstrated. Moreover, HepaRG cells also preferentially expressed the hepatic integrin α5β1 – an important modulator of cell behaviour including growth and survival, differentiation and polarity. Drug metabolite profiling of phenacetin (CYP1A2) and testosterone (CYP3A4) using LC‐MS/MS and HPLC, respectively, revealed that HepaRGs had more intact (Phase I–II) metabolism profile. Thus, HepaRG cells significantly outperform C3A cells for the potential pharmaceutical and therapeutic applications.
Withdrawal of licensed drugs from the market despite passing both pre‐clinical in vitro and in vivo toxicity testing continues to be a significant problem. Development of improved in vitro human hepatic models for pre‐clinical drug testing is required to more closely resemble the in vivo hepatic environment and minimize interspecies differences 1. Hence, in vitro toxicological models based on human hepatic cell lines would provide more comparable and informative readout than animal models. In order to develop a physiologically relevant, sustainable and reproducible in vitro culture system, the choice of a suitable cell line is critical. Human hepatoma‐derived cell lines such as HepG2 and Huh7 are commonly used in early drug safety assessment 2, but often fail to predict hepatotoxic drugs. The ideal cell model should maintain metabolic pathways such as key CYP450 enzyme activities, possess an intact drug transporter system (hepatic polarity) and be able to offer mechanistic insight into the effects of drugs at both the cellular and molecular level. In addition, such culture systems should have a stable metabolic phenotype to further ensure reproducibility and flexibility of use. Primary human hepatocytes (PHHs) are the preferred in vitro model for many pharmaceutical and therapeutic approaches. However, limited availability, interdonor functional and genetic variability and early phenotypic alterations of PHH cultures restrict their application, such as repeat/chronic toxicity studies, or availability for cell therapeutics. Indeed, the integrity of PHHs used for modelling metabolic processes may be in question; given the inherent phenotypic instability of PHHs since upon isolation, the cells are in a state of pre‐apoptotic stress with the differences in stability of individual CYP450s in culture 3. This represents a major challenge for pharma where the standardization and development of more practical, sustainable and stable physiologically relevant alternatives are prerequisite for improving pre‐clinical testing outcome.
Although hepatoblastoma‐derived cancer cells, such as the HepG2 cell line, are an inexpensive and convenient model, widely used in pre‐clinical drug testing, they lack a substantial set of liver‐specific functions, particularly CYP450 activity 4. The HepG2/C3A cell line (herein designated C3A cells) is a clonal derivative of the HepG2 cell line. C3A cells were selected as a more differentiated and metabolically active hepatic phenotype, compared with the parent HepG2 cell line 5.
Previously, we demonstrated the enhancement of the C3A cell phenotype, including CYP3A4 activity/albumin synthesis, by co‐culture with human endothelial cells 5, and through ‘metabolic’ preconditioning 6, whilst others have used tissue engineering approaches to augment C3A cell metabolism 7, 8. Forced transfection of HepG2 hepatic cell lines with CYP2E1‐containing plasmids is also performed for highly specific applications, such as ethanol toxicity studies 9. Notably, C3A and human HepaRG hepatic cell lines have been implemented as the biological component of bioartificial liver systems (BALs) 10, suggesting that both cell types possess a sufficiently ‘organotypic’ phenotypic and functional properties to support patients with acute liver failure. However, it is not known whether conventional C3A cell monocultures are a practicable model for use in metabolic studies for pre‐clinical drug testing or for clinical applications such as BALs 11. Indeed, limited functionality, low CYP activity or poor sustainability would represent significant barriers, for BAL application 12, 13.
The human HepaRG hepatic cell line has emerged as a potential surrogate to PHHs for pre‐clinical hepatotoxicity assays 14. HepaRGs are a unique (intrinsic), terminally differentiated co‐culture of hepatocyte‐ and cholangiocyte‐like cells containing many functional and phenotypic similarities with PHH 15. These cells were procured from a young adult female with hepatocarcinoma 16. HepaRGs are a highly reproducible cell line, without the donor variability seen in PHHs, and as such ensure a consistent and phenotypically stable cell line, presenting a potentially more standardized model 17. HepaRG cells retain some of the major CYP450 pathways and Phase II enzymes as well as the production of glucose/glycogen and urea 15, 16, 17. These cells also show functional polarity, a hallmark of in vivo hepatocyte organization 15, with intact Phase III drug transporters. These properties are generally not evident in ‘standard’ human hepatic cell lines monocultures. Given their potential for pharmaceutical applications and cell therapeutics including BALs, studies comparing such widely used human hepatic cell lines are surprisingly limited, whilst direct comparisons between C3A cells and HepaRG cells have not been previously reported. In this study, we aimed to compare the phenotypic and metabolic parameters, including CYP450 activity and metabolism between HepG2/C3A and human HepaRG cells, to assess their value as suitable hepatic models for pre‐clinical drug testing and therapeutics.
Materials and Methods
Cell culture
C3A cells (HepG2/C3A), derivative of HepG2: ATCC® CRL‐10741™, were cultured on Corning plates in minimum essential medium Eagle (MEME+; Sigma Aldrich) with 10% foetal bovine serum (FBS, Life Technologies, Paisley, UK) and 1% penicillin/streptomycin (Life Technologies). The culture was kept at 37°C 5% CO2 until ~80% confluency. HepaRG cells (HRG116 terminally differentiated cells, BioPredic international, Rennes, France) were seeded (following the suppliers protocols) on Corning plates and cultured to confluence at 37°C 5% CO2 for 7 days.
Immunocytochemistry
On culture day 8, the cells were fixed in 4% paraformaldehyde (Sigma Aldrich), permeabilized with 0.1% Triton X‐100 in tris‐buffered saline (TBS), then blocked with TBS containing 5% bovine serum albumin (BSA; Sigma Aldrich) before incubation with primary (rabbit) anti‐human CYP3A4 antibody (AB1254, Chemicon, Millipore, Hertfordshire, UK) (1:800) and TRITC‐conjugated phalloidin (Sigma Aldrich) (1:100). The cells were then treated with appropriate secondary anti‐rabbit antibody (Alexa Fluor® 488) prior to (nuclear) staining with DAPI (1:5000) for 5 min. Cell morphology was assessed under phase contrast and for immunocytofluorescent staining using an EVOS AUTO FL microscope (Life Technologies). Images were merged using ImageJ 1.47v (National Institute of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA).
Biotransformation potential
Cytochrome P450 enzyme activity
Cells were treated for 24 hr with prototypical inducers 50 μM omeprazole (CYP1A2) or rifampicin (CYP3A4), with or without the addition of CYP450 isoform‐specific inhibitors 25 μM fluvoxamine (CYP1A2) or ketoconazole (CYP3A4), in MEME (C3As) or hepatocyte induction medium (HepaRGs). The cells were then washed twice with HBSS. Specific CYP450 enzyme activity was subsequently assessed using a non‐lytic luminescence assay using specific kits for CYP1A2 and CYP3A4, following the manufacturer's instructions (P450‐Glo, Promega, Southampton, UK). Bioluminescent signals were detected with a GloMax‐Multi+ Microplate Multimode Reader (Promega). Individual luminescent assay readings were background‐corrected and normalized to cellular ATP content.
Phase I and II metabolism of phenacetin and testosterone
In order to profile the relative drug metabolism in each cell type, metabolites formed by CYP1A2 or CYP3A4 hepatic metabolism were assessed after the exposure to 50 μM phenacetin (CYP1A2), or testosterone (CYP3A4), for 2 hr at 37°C. Reactions were stopped on ice, and cell supernatant (medium) samples were stored at −80°C before analytical measurements using HPLC (testosterone) or LC‐MS/MS (phenacetin).
Phenacetin metabolism: Liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry
Phenacetin metabolism was assessed using an ABI Applied Biosystems 5500 QTrap Mass spectrometer and AB Sciex software, Analyst 1.5.1, and LightSight software to identify the metabolites. Methods are described in detail in Supporting Information.
Testosterone
Relative turnover and metabolic breakdown of testosterone was assessed by HPLC‐UV with absorbance at 254 nm. Samples were enriched with an internal standard (20 μg/ml 11 α‐hydroxyprogesterone in methanol) and extracted with dichloromethane before they were resuspended in 30% methanol and injected (25 μl) onto an Eclipse XD8‐C18 3 μm 3 × 100 mm column (Agilent, Cheadle, UK). A series of calibration standards were prepared containing 6β, 7α, 16α, 16β and 2α‐hydroxytestosterone, plus internal standard. Androstenedione and testosterone were analysed at the start of each run at 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2.5, 5, 7.5 and 10 nmoles in 30% methanol.
Flow cytometry
Integrin expression of C3A cells was compared with HepaRG cells, including the progenitor HepaRG101 cell line, and after the differentiation to terminally differentiated HepaRG116 cells. This allows the assessment of integrin expression in C3A cells, known to express foetal markers (e.g. alpha‐fetoprotein), with both the HepaRG101 (hepatoblast‐like) progenitors and their derivatives (HepaRG116), as comparators. To assess the expression of integrins, single cell suspensions were enzymatically recovered using xeno‐free Tryple (Life Technologies) – which protects cellular surface proteins – washed and resuspended in FACS–PBS (PBS containing 0.1% BSA and 0.1% sodium azide), for simultaneous staining with a panel of fluorochrome‐labelled integrin antibodies: CD29‐BV510, CD49f‐BV451, CD49d‐FITC, CD49c‐PE, CD49a‐APC‐Vio770, CD49b‐PE‐Vio770, CD49e‐APC (all from Miltenyi Biotec). The cells were incubated with antibodies at 4°C for 20 min., washed twice and resuspended in FACS–PBS. Unstained cells were included as controls, whilst dead cells and debris were excluded from the analysis based on scatter characteristics. Data for at least 10,000 live events per sample were acquired using a MACSQuant Analyzer (Miltenyi Biotec) and were analysed using FlowJo version 9.6.7 software (FlowJo LLC). Data are presented as percentage positive staining.
Statistical analysis
All experiments were performed with three to eight technical replicates from a minimum of three independent biological experiments. Results are presented as mean ± standard error of the mean (S.E.M.), and individual groups were (generally) compared with a two‐tailed unpaired Student's t‐test to test significance as indicated. A p‐value lower than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results
Phenotypic profiling of HepaRG and HepG2/C3A cells
HepaRG cells formed terminally differentiated in vivo‐like hepatic cords and cholangiocyte‐like cells (fig. 1A) with functional polarity, as demonstrated by punctate staining of F‐actin bands indicative of bile canalicular structures (phalloidin staining, fig. 1C); these could also be observed in C3A cells (fig. 1D), although with less pronounced staining. In contrast, high CYP3A4 protein expression (fig. 1C; green staining) with strong expression of CYP2E1, CYP1A2 and CYP3A4 genes was evident only in HepaRGs, indicative of high metabolic competence for drug metabolism (fig. 1E).
Biotransformation potential
CYP450 enzyme activity and specificity
HepaRG CYP1A2 (fig. 2A) and CYP3A4 (fig. 2C) activities were significantly higher than those measured in HepG2/C3A cells [p < 0.0001]. In fact, relative luminescence measured in HepG2/C3A cells was at levels of blank controls. Specificity of CYP450 isoform induction was confirmed with the specific inhibitors: fluvoxamine (CYP1A2) and ketoconazole (CYP3A4).
Phase I and II metabolism of phenacetin and testosterone
To further investigate the extent of CYP1A2 and 3A4 metabolic activity in each cell type, phenacetin (CYP1A2) metabolism and testosterone (CYP3A4) metabolism were used to assess the metabolic competency. Compound turnover, and the ratio of analyte to metabolite, was assessed using LC:MS/MS (phenacetin) and HPLC (testosterone). Compared with C3A cells, HepaRG cells showed significantly higher turnover of phenacetin (28.5 ± 4.4% versus 11.7 ± 0.6%; p < 0.01) and testosterone (56.5 ± 7.6% versus 2.0 ± 0.2%; p < 0.001, respectively), with a wider spectrum and more refined metabolic breakdown of phenacetin and testosterone in HepaRG cells.
Phenacetin
HepaRG cells yielded a higher turnover of phenacetin and gave a clear yield ratio of analyte to metabolite via end‐point analysis (fig. 2B). We were able to characterize de‐demethylation of our substrate, phenacetin, by observing the significant mono‐ and tri‐demethylation of the parent metabolite into paracetamol (fig. 3B–D). In addition, characteristic secondary metabolites of sulphonation and glucuronidation were detected (data not shown). Such broad‐spectrum metabolism is not seen in C3A cells, where no secondary metabolites were detected.
Testosterone
Given that each compound has its own unique absorbance, the chromatographic elution time of testosterone was compared in in vitro samples with that of known calibration standards, and HPLC‐UV absorbance was assessed using a photodiode array detector. In contrast with C3As, HepaRG cells metabolized >50% of (total) testosterone, producing a major metabolite (6‐β‐hydroxytestosterone), as well as a panel of other secondary metabolites (fig. 4A), whilst C3A cells only showed the presence of relatively minor metabolites, with low turnover of the parent compound (fig. 4B). Using HPLC, the relative turnover of testosterone by hydroxylation (see fig. 3D) was determined in HepaRG cells, whilst no trace of this metabolite is present in C3A cells.
Flow cytometric integrin expression in HepaRG and C3A cells
Expression of integrins CD49a‐f (α subunits 1–6) and CD29 (β1 subunit) by C3A, HepaRG101 and HepaRG116 cells is shown in fig. 5. C3A cells expressed CD49a, CD49b, CD49f and CD29, but showed no staining for CD49c‐e. The immature/undifferentiated hepatoblast‐like cell line HepaRG101 showed a comparable phenotype, expressing CD49a, CD49b, CD49f, although the frequency and level of expression of CD49f was lower than that for C3A. In addition, HepaRG101 cells expressed CD49e, which was absent from C3A cells. HepaRG116 differentiated cells show hepatocyte, biliary and epithelial cells morphologically (fig. 5).
Discussion
Appropriate in vitro human models are urgently required to help reduce high drug attrition rates by detecting toxicity earlier and improving predictive outcome, which may help reduce the reliance on subsequent animal testing in drug development. We compared two candidate human hepatic cell lines, HepaRG and C3A cells, and demonstrated differential organotypic properties. Only HepaRG cells retain differentiated morphological, phenotypic and augmented functional features for context‐specific applications, such as in early‐phase drug discovery and development, or BAL use. HepaRG cells may represent a more physiologically relevant pre‐clinical platform for CYP450 activation/inhibition studies and safety pharmacology, as well as drug–drug interaction studies.
Comparative assessment through the characterization and validation of functional and phenotypic properties of candidate human hepatic cells, for a defined operational task, is not widely reported 18. Compared with C3As, HepaRG co‐cultures exhibit a more organotypic phenotype, including evidence of hepatic polarity with strong expression of CYP3A4 (fig. 1), the major isoform involved in the metabolism of over 60% of marketed drugs 12, 13 . Similarly, greater expression of CYP1A2, CYP2E1 and CYP3A4 genes in HepaRG cells, compared with C3As, is comparable with that of human liver biopsies, whilst HepG2 cells have also been shown to express very low CYP450 levels 16.
Analytical techniques including LC‐MS/MS and flow cytometry allow candidate in vitro models to be interrogated for cell type‐specific markers and drug reactive metabolite formation, allowing intrinsic (predictive) drug clearance rates to be calculated. Both turnover and the profile of HepaRG phenacetin and testosterone metabolites are significantly broader compared with C3As (figs. 3 and 4), suggesting their usefulness in predictive drug testing. Moreover, LC‐MS/MS profiling of phenacetin showed that only HepaRG cells catalysed a range of complex Phase I (oxidation, mono‐demethylation and tri‐demethylation) and Phase II (sulphonation and glucuronidation) reactions (see fig. 3B).
Many in vitro drug testing assays use HepG2 cells, whilst the HepG2 derivative 19, 20, C3A cells, has been utilized in tissue engineering and cell therapeutic applications, such as the extracorporeal liver assist device (ELAD) system. Although the ELAD system failed to meet expectations in clinical trials 21, it is well known that detoxification capacity and mixed function oxidase activity are very poor 22, in HepG2 cells, which require the manipulation to stimulate CYP450 activity such as transfection 23, whilst metabolic preconditioning 6 can enhance functional suitability for BALs, drug safety or pharmacological experiments. Although useful in proliferation assays, further reported disadvantages of HepG2 cells, which we show in the present study, include the lack of specific liver function (CYP450 activity/metabolism) that potentially does not have the significant toxic effects of candidate compounds under investigation.
C3A cells are, however, a useful model for context‐specific applications including predictive modelling of hepatotoxicants 24, metabolomics and tissue engineering approaches including 3D‐spheroid formation 7 and in microfluidics devices 8, which improved the phenotype and functionality. This is equally true of HepaRG cells that have been utilized in clinical applications such as BALs, hepatitis research and drug‐induced liver injury (DILI) 15, 16.
Our study supports the preferential usage of HepaRG over C3A cells in such applications 12, 13 due to their reproducibility and stability (>28 days) in culture, coupled with a significantly greater array of gene and enzymatic mixed function oxidases (fig. 2). In agreement, other reports show that these cells exhibit Phase I–III metabolism 25. Indeed, Gerets et al. 26 compared HepG2, HepaRG and PHHs assessing gene expression and employing real‐time impedence biosensing with various CYP450 assays containing prototypical inducers. They found HepaRG cells to be the most inducible model and metabolically more closely related to PHHs than HepG2. When comparing gene expression of Phase I, II and III mRNA between HepG2, HepaRG and PHH cells, they also found that HepG2 cells expressed the lowest mRNA values for almost every gene tested 22. Altogether, these studies suggest that HepaRG may be a useful surrogate to PHHs.
We performed flow cytometric analysis to assess and compare the expression profile of cell surface integrin receptors. Integrin‐mediated cell adhesion sites link the actin cytoskeleton with the extracellular matrix and are important modulators of cell behaviour including growth and survival, differentiation and polarity 27. Expression profiling reveals that HepaRG116 differentiated cells show markers associated with hepatocyte, biliary and epithelial cells morphologically (fig. 5). In contrast with C3A, which was derived from a hepatocellular carcinoma patient, the non‐tumorigenic HepaRG cells notably express the most abundant hepatocyte integrin α5 (the fibronectin receptor, α5β1), important in development and cell differentiation processes. Therefore, HepaRG cells may represent a valuable model to study hepatic cell–cell/ cell–matrix interactions.
Given that hepatic clearance of drugs depends on the activity of transport proteins located on the bile canalicular membranes, the unique properties of HepaRG polarity (fig. 1) may permit focused approaches for cholestatic drug‐based DILI studies as well as drug–drug interactions, a significant bottleneck in the drug development pipeline 15. This, together with the broad hepatic functionality of the HepaRG in vitro co‐culture system, also offers an opportunity to establish robust ‘disease‐in‐a‐dish’ models and offers insight into the interaction between hepatocytes and cholangiocytes, a main feature of in vivo hepatic organization.
One disadvantage of the HepaRG cells is currently their cost when compared with the widely available HepG2/C3A cells, which can be propagated through multiple passages. This is perhaps offset to some degree, by the stability of the HepaRG cells for a variety of time‐sensitive experiments such as acute, chronic or repeat‐dose hepatotoxicity studies, over 4 weeks, so enabling a larger number of experiments with less variability and more stability.
In conclusion, our comparative study supports human HepaRG cells as a more pertinent organotypic in vitro human model, compared with C3A cells, which may permit more predictive pre‐clinical screening of drugs and could potentially reduce drug attrition, DILI and animal testing, leading to lower drug development costs. Defining physiological properties of such hepatic models may inform future human liver tissue modelling strategies for a variety of pharmaceutical and therapeutic applications.
Supporting information
Conflict of Interests
We the authors declare that there are no competing interests.
Funding
This research study was supported by The Chief Scientist Office of Scotland (ETM/182). LJN and PCH are supported by BBSRC (UK) funding (BB/L023687/1).
References
- 1. Jemnitz K, Veres Z, Monostory K, Kobori L, Vereczkey L. Interspecies differences in acetaminophen sensitivity of human, rat, and mouse primary hepatocytes. Toxicol In Vitro 2008;22:961–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Godoy P, Hewitt NJ, Albrecht U, Andersen ME, Ansari N, Bhattacharya S et al Recent advances in 2D and 3D in vitro systems using primary hepatocytes, alternative hepatocyte sources and non‐parenchymal liver cells and their use in investigating mechanisms of hepatotoxicity, cell signaling and ADME. Arch Toxicol 2013;87:1315–530. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Nelson LJ, Navarro M, Treskes P, Samuel K, Tura‐Ceide O, Morley S et al Acetaminophen cytotoxicity is ameliorated in a human liver organotypic co‐culture model. Sci Rep, 2015;5:17455. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Gómez‐Lechón MJ, Lahoz A, Gombau L, Castell JV, Donato MT. In vitro evaluation of potential hepatotoxicity induced by drugs. Curr Pharm Des, 2010;16:1963–77. Review. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Sussman NL, Kelly JH. Artificial liver: a forth coming attraction. Hepatology 1993;17:1163–4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Filippi C, Keatch SA, Rangar D, Nelson LJ, Hayes PC, Plevris JN. Improvement of C3A cell metabolism for usage in bioartificial liver support systems. J Hepatol 2004;41:599–605. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Elkayam T, Amitay‐Shaprut S, Dvir‐Ginzberg M, Harel T, Cohen S. Enhancing the drug metabolism activities of C3A–a human hepatocyte cell line–by tissue engineering within alginate scaffolds. Tissue Eng 2006;12:1357–68. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Prot JM, Aninat C, Griscom L, Razan F, Brochot C, Guillouzo CG et al Improvement of HepG2/C3a cell functions in a microfluidic biochip. Biotechnol Bioeng 2011;108:1704–15. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Lu Y1, Cederbaum AI. CYP2E1 and oxidative liver injury by alcohol. Free Radic Biol Med 2008;44:723–38. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Carpentier B, Gautier A, Legallais C. Artificial and bioartificial liver devices: present and future. Gut 2009;58:1690–702. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Nelson LJ, Treskes P, Howie AF, Walker SW, Hayes PC, Plevris JN. Profiling the impact of medium formulation on morphology and functionality of primary hepatocytes in vitro. Sci Rep 2013;3:2735. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Newsome PN, Plevris JN, Nelson LJ, Hayes PC. Animal models of fulminant hepatic failure: a critical evaluation. Liver Transpl 2000;6:21–31. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Tsiaoussis J, Newsome PN, Nelson LJ, Hayes PC, Plevris JN. Which hepatocyte will it be? Hepatocyte choice for bioartificial liver support systems Liver Transpl 2001;7:2–10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Grime K, Ferguson D, Riley R. The use of HepaRG and human hepatocyte data in predicting CYP induction drug‐drug interactions via static equation and dynamic mechanistic modelling approaches. Curr Drug Metab 2010;11:870–85. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Anthérieu S, Chesné C, Li R, Guguen‐Guillouzo C, Guillouzo A. Optimization of the HepaRG cell model for drug metabolism and toxicity studies. Toxicol In Vitro 2012;26:1278–85. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Gripon P, Rumin S, Urban S, Le Seyec J, Glaise D, Cannie I et al Infection of a human hepatoma cell line by hepatitis B virus. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2002;99:15655. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Gunness P, Mueller D, Shevchenko V, Heinzle E, Ingleman MS, Noor F. 3D Organotypic cultures of human HepaRG cells: a tool for toxicity studies. Toxicol Sci 2013;133:67–78. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Lin J, Schyschka L, Muhl‐Benninghaus R, Neumann J, Hao L, Nussler N et al Comparative analysis of phase I and II enzyme activities in 5 hepatic cell lines identifies Huh‐7 and HCC‐T cells with the highest potential to study drug metabolism. Arch Toxicol 2012;86:87–95. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Bandele OJ, Santillo MF, Ferguson M, Wiesenfeld PL. In vitro toxicity screening of chemical mixtures using HepG2/C3A cells. Food Chem Toxicol 2012;50:1653–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Kermanizadeh A, Gaiser BK, Hutchison GR, Stone V. An in vitro liver model – assessing oxidative stress and genotoxicity following exposure of hepatocytes to a panel exhibit a few of engineered nanomaterials. Part Fibre Technol, 2012;9:28. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Ellis AJ, Hughes RD, Wendon JA, Dunne J, Langley PG, Kelly JH et al Pilot‐controlled trial of the extracorporeal liver assist device in acute liver failure. Hepatology 1996;24:1446–51. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Yu Y, Fisher JE, Lillegard JB, Rodysill B, Amiot B, Nyberg SL. Cell therapies for liver diseases. Liver Transpl 2012;18:9–21. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Vermeir M, Annaert P, Mamidi RN, Roymans D, Meuldermans W, Mannens G. Cell‐based models to study hepatic drug metabolism and enzyme induction in humans. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 2005;1:75–90. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Flynn TJ, Ferguson MS. Multiendpoint mechanistic profiling of hepatotoxicants in HepG2/C3A human hepatoma cells and novel statistical approaches for development of a prediction model for acute hepatotoxicity. Toxicol In Vitro 2008;22:1618–31. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Le Vee M, Noel G, Jouan E, Stieger B, Fardel O. Polarized expression of drug transporters in differentiated human hepatoma HepaRG cells. Toxicol In Vitro 2013;27:1979–86. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Gerets H, Tilmant J, Gerin K, Chanteux B, Depelchin O, Dhalluin S et al Characterization PHHs, including expression of primary human hepatocytes, HepG2 cells, and HepaRG cells at the mRNA Level and CYP activity in response to inducers and their predictivity for the detection of human hepatotoxins. Cell Biol Toxicol 2012;28:69–87. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Giancotti FG, Ruoslahti E. Integrin signalling. Science 1999;285:1028–32. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.