» Articles » PMID: 38637526

Improving the Power of Drug Toxicity Measurements by Quantitative Nuclei Imaging

Overview
Date 2024 Apr 18
PMID 38637526
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Imaging-based anticancer drug screens are becoming more prevalent due to development of automated fluorescent microscopes and imaging stations, as well as rapid advancements in image processing software. Automated cell imaging provides many benefits such as their ability to provide high-content data, modularity, dynamics recording and the fact that imaging is the most direct way to access cell viability and cell proliferation. However, currently most publicly available large-scale anticancer drugs screens, such as GDSC, CTRP and NCI-60, provide cell viability data measured by assays based on colorimetric or luminometric measurements of NADH or ATP levels. Although such datasets provide valuable data, it is unclear how well drug toxicity measurements can be integrated with imaging data. Here we explored the relations between drug toxicity data obtained by XTT assay, two quantitative nuclei imaging methods and trypan blue dye exclusion assay using a set of four cancer cell lines with different morphologies and 30 drugs with different mechanisms of action. We show that imaging-based approaches provide high accuracy and the differences between results obtained by different methods highly depend on drug mechanism of action. Selecting AUC metrics over IC50 or comparing data where significantly drugs reduced cell numbers noticeably improves consistency between methods. Using automated cell segmentation protocols we analyzed mitochondria activity in more than 11 thousand drug-treated cells and showed that XTT assay produces unreliable data for CDK4/6, Aurora A, VEGFR and PARP inhibitors due induced cell size growth and increase in individual mitochondria activity. We also explored several benefits of image-based analysis such as ability to monitor cell number dynamics, dissect changes in total and individual mitochondria activity from cell proliferation, and ability to identify chromatin remodeling drugs. Finally, we provide a web tool that allows comparing results obtained by different methods.

Citing Articles

Systematic Comparison of FBS and Medium Variation Effect on Key Cellular Processes Using Morphological Profiling.

Lebedev T, Mikheeva A, Gasca V, Spirin P, Prassolov V Cells. 2025; 14(5).

PMID: 40072065 PMC: 11898771. DOI: 10.3390/cells14050336.

References
1.
Masson-Meyers D, Bumah V, Enwemeka C . A comparison of four methods for determining viability in human dermal fibroblasts irradiated with blue light. J Pharmacol Toxicol Methods. 2016; 79:15-22. DOI: 10.1016/j.vascn.2016.01.001. View

2.
Rees M, Seashore-Ludlow B, Cheah J, Adams D, Price E, Gill S . Correlating chemical sensitivity and basal gene expression reveals mechanism of action. Nat Chem Biol. 2015; 12(2):109-16. PMC: 4718762. DOI: 10.1038/nchembio.1986. View

3.
Hoogstraten C, Smeitink J, Russel F, Schirris T . Dissecting Drug-Induced Cytotoxicity and Metabolic Dysfunction in Conditionally Immortalized Human Proximal Tubule Cells. Front Toxicol. 2022; 4:842396. PMC: 8915871. DOI: 10.3389/ftox.2022.842396. View

4.
Sazonova E, Chesnokov M, Zhivotovsky B, Kopeina G . Drug toxicity assessment: cell proliferation versus cell death. Cell Death Discov. 2022; 8(1):417. PMC: 9568594. DOI: 10.1038/s41420-022-01207-x. View

5.
Gu Z, Eils R, Schlesner M . Complex heatmaps reveal patterns and correlations in multidimensional genomic data. Bioinformatics. 2016; 32(18):2847-9. DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btw313. View