In vitro testicular toxicity of environmentally relevant endocrine-disrupting chemicals: 2D vs. 3D models of prepubertal Leydig TM3 cells

被引:7
|
作者
Sychrova, Eliska [1 ]
Yawer, Affiefa [1 ]
Laboha, Petra [1 ]
Basu, Amrita [1 ]
Dydowiczova, Aneta [1 ]
Virmani, Ishita [1 ]
Babica, Pavel [1 ]
Sovadinova, Iva [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Masaryk Univ, Fac Sci, RECETOX, Kotlarska 2, Brno, Czech Republic
[2] Masaryk Univ, Fac Sci, RECETOX, Kamenice 753-5,Pavil A29, Brno 62500, Czech Republic
关键词
3D in vitro models; Endocrine-disrupting chemicals; Leydig cells; Lipotoxicity; Reproductive toxicity; Spheroids; POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC-HYDROCARBONS; SERUM; COMMUNICATION; METABOLITES; EXPOSURES; SYSTEMS; PAHS;
D O I
10.1016/j.etap.2022.103869
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
The testis is a priority organ for developing alternative models to assess male reproductive health hazards of chemicals. This study characterized a 3D in vitro model of murine prepubertal Leydig TM3 cells with improved expression of steroidogenesis markers suitable for image-based screening of testicular toxicity. This 3D scaffold free spheroid model was applied to explore the impact of prototypical endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) and environmental reprotoxicants (benzo[a]pyrene, 2-and 9-methylanthracenes, fluoranthene, triclosan, triclocarban, methoxychlor) on male reproductive health. The results were compared to the male reprotoxicity potential of EDCs assessed in a traditional monolayer (2D) culture. The testicular toxicity was dependent not only on the type of culture (2D vs. 3D models) but also on the duration of exposure. Benzo[a]pyrene and triclocarban were the most active compounds, eliciting cytotoxic effects in prepubertal Leydig cells at low micromolar concentrations, which might be a mechanism contributing to their male reprotoxicity.
引用
收藏
页数:16
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Signaling reactions in 2D vs. 3D
    Huang, William Y. C.
    Boxer, Steven G.
    Ferrell, James E.
    BIOPHYSICAL JOURNAL, 2024, 123 (03) : 21A - 21A
  • [2] Assessing Radiosensitivity of Bladder Cancer in vitro: A 2D vs. 3D Approach
    Bodgi, Larry
    Bahmad, Hisham F.
    Araji, Tarek
    Al Choboq, Joelle
    Bou-Gharios, Jolie
    Cheaito, Katia
    Zeidan, Youssef H.
    Eid, Toufic
    Geara, Fady
    Abou-Kheir, Wassim
    FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY, 2019, 9
  • [3] Transcriptional Landscape of 3D vs. 2D Ovarian Cancer Cell Models
    Kerslake, Rachel
    Belay, Birhanu
    Panfilov, Suzana
    Hall, Marcia
    Kyrou, Ioannis
    Randeva, Harpal S. S.
    Hyttinen, Jari
    Karteris, Emmanouil
    Sisu, Cristina
    CANCERS, 2023, 15 (13)
  • [4] 2D vs. 3D Mammography: Observer Study
    Fernandez, James Reza F.
    Hovanessian-Larsen, Linda
    Liu, Brent
    MEDICAL IMAGING 2011: ADVANCED PACS-BASED IMAGING INFORMATICS AND THERAPEUTIC APPLICATIONS, 2011, 7967
  • [5] Image quality vs. NEC in 2D and 3D PET
    Wilson, John W.
    Turkington, Timothy G.
    Wilson, Josh M.
    Colsher, James G.
    Ross, Steven G.
    2005 IEEE NUCLEAR SCIENCE SYMPOSIUM CONFERENCE RECORD, VOLS 1-5, 2005, : 2133 - 2137
  • [6] 2D whispering gallery vs. 3D whispering cave
    Kwon, O'Dae
    LASER RESONATORS AND BEAM CONTROL X, 2008, 6872
  • [7] 2D vs. 3D positioning results for 4D treatments
    Lederer, Lydia
    STRAHLENTHERAPIE UND ONKOLOGIE, 2019, 195 (06) : 604 - 604
  • [8] 3D vs. 2D Channel Models: Spatial Correlation and Channel Capacity Comparison and Analysis
    Yu, Yawei
    Smith, Peter J.
    Dmochowski, Pawel A.
    Zhang, Jianhua
    Shafi, Mansoor
    2017 IEEE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON COMMUNICATIONS (ICC), 2017,
  • [9] 2D vs. 3D Ultrasound Diagnosis of Pediatric Supracondylar Fractures
    Knight, Jessica
    Alves-Pereira, Fatima
    Keen, Christopher E.
    Jaremko, Jacob L.
    CHILDREN-BASEL, 2023, 10 (11):
  • [10] Modeling Physiological Events in 2D vs. 3D Cell Culture
    Duval, Kayla
    Grover, Hannah
    Han, Li-Hsin
    Mou, Yongchao
    Pegoraro, Adrian F.
    Fredberg, Jeffery
    Chen, Zi
    PHYSIOLOGY, 2017, 32 (04) : 266 - 277