Development of a Cell-Based Assay to Quantify the Inflammatory Potential of Test Substances and Screen Compound Libraries for Anti-cancer Drug Candidates in a High-Throughput Format

  • Serguei V. Kozlov
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology™ book series (MIMB, volume 512)


Despite the current availability of an impressive in vitro assay battery developed to quantitatively analyze the broad panel of small compounds and macromolecules that possess the inflammatory potential, little methodology exists nowadays that affords a researcher or clinician to quantify the ultimate output on the level of cell signaling response caused by inflammatory pathway stimulation. As a matter of fact, majority of analytical tools measure bona fide inflammatory substances (e.g., cytokines or chemokines) by their direct binding to secondary reagents such as specific antibodies or other selectively affine substrates with the final readout generated via quantification of the resulting complexes. Although specific and highly reproducible, this approach provides no discrimination between biologically active versus inactive input analyte nor does it address the differential biological potential for the questioned substances related to their in vivo stability and biodistribution. In a search for alternative solutions, a novel strategy is emerging that employs cell-based methods of inflammatory substance measurements allowing to detect and quantify the downstream effects of analyte's activity translated in terms of inflammatory pathways stimulation. In addition, application of cell based assays simultaneously permits entry level evaluation of compound toxicity and endows with a powerful approach to perform high-throughput screenings of, e.g., small molecule libraries in a quest for novel compounds capable of influencing the inflammation process.

Key words

Inflammation Cell-based assays Cancer NF-κB; High-throughput screening 



I thank Dr. Marina Dobrovolskaia for critical reading of the manuscript. Experimental suggestions of Dr. Eugene Barsov and Dr. Stephanie Vogel are also greatly appreciated. This project has been funded in whole or in part with Federal funds from the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health. The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of Health and Human Services, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.


  1. 1.
    Dobrovolskaia, M.A., and Kozlov, S.V. (2005) Inflammation and cancer: when NF-kappaB amalgamates the perilous partnership. Curr Cancer Drug Targets 5, 325–344.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Coussens, L.M., and Werb, Z. (2002) Inflammation and cancer. Nature 420, 860–867.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Calzado, M.A., Bacher, S., and Schmitz, M.L. (2007) NF-kappaB inhibitors for the treatment of inflammatory diseases and cancer. Curr Med Chem 14, 367–376.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Corcoran, A.E., Barrett, K., Turner, M., Brown, A., Kissonerghis, A.M., Gadnell, M., Gray, P.W., Chernajovsky, Y., and Feldmann, M. (1994) Characterization of ligand binding by the human p55 tumour-necrosis-factor receptor. Involvement of individual cysteine-rich repeats. Eur J Biochem 223, 831–840.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Li, Q., and Verma, I.M. (2002) NF-kappaB regulation in the immune system. Nat Rev Immunol 2, 725–734.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chen, K., Huang, J., Gong, W., Iribarren, P., Dunlop, N.M., and Wang, J.M. (2007) Toll-like receptors in inflammation, infection and cancer. Int Immunopharmacol 7, 1271–1285.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ruscher, K., Reuter, M., Kupper, D., Tren-delenburg, G., Dirnagl, U., and Meisel, A. (2000) A fluorescence based non-radioactive electrophoretic mobility shift assay. J Biotechnol 78, 163–170.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Li, N., and Karin, M. (2000) Signaling pathways leading to nuclear factor-kappa B activation. Methods Enzymol 319, 273–279.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hellweg, C.E., Baumstark-Khan, C., and Hor-neck, G. (2003) Generation of stably transfected mammalian cell lines as fluorescent screening assay for NF-kappaB activation-dependent gene expression. J Biomol Screen 8, 511–521.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mayo, M.W., Norris, J.L., and Baldwin, A.S. (2001) Ras regulation of NF-kappa B and apoptosis. Methods Enzymol 333, 73–87.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Flick, D.A., and Gifford, G.E. (1984) Comparison of in vitro cell cytotoxic assays for tumor necrosis factor. J Immunol Methods 68, 167–175.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kozlov, S.V., Dobrovolskaia, M.A., Rice, N.R., Stewart, C.L., and Vogel, S.N. (2003) A novel cell-based system for the rapid quantitative evaluation of (anti)-inflammatory potential of test substances. J Immunol Methods 281, 51–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chen, T., Knapp, A.C., Wu, Y., Huang, J., Lynch, J.S., Dickson, J.K. Jr., Lawrence, R.M., Feyen, J.H., and Agler, M.L. (2006) High throughput screening identified a substituted imidazole as a novel RANK pathway-selective osteoclastogenesis inhibitor. Assay Drug Dev Technol 4, 387–396.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mirzoeva, S., Koppal, T., Petrova, T.V., Lukas, T.J., Watterson, D.M., and Van Eldik, L.J. (1999) Screening in a cell-based assay for inhibitors of microglial nitric oxide production reveals calmodulin-regulated protein kinases as potential drug discovery targets. Brain ResM 844, 126–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bertelsen, M., and Sanfridson, A. (2005) Inflammatory pathway analysis using a high content screening platform. Assay Drug Dev Technol 3, 261–271.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mayer, T., Jagla, B., Wyler, M.R., Kelly, P.D., Aulner, N., Beard, M., Barger, G., Tobben, U., Smith, D.H., Branden, L., and Rothman, J.E. (2006) Cell-based assays using primary endothe-lial cells to study multiple steps in inflammation. Methods Enzymol 414, 266–283.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chen, Y.T., and Bradley, A. (2000) A new positive/negative selectable marker, puDel-tatk, for use in embryonic stem cells. Genesis 28, 31–35.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kinsella, T.M., and Nolan, G.P. (1996) Episo-mal vectors rapidly and stably produce high-titer recombinant retrovirus. Hum Gene Ther 7, 1405–1413.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kitamura, T., Onishi, M., Kinoshita, S., Shibuya, A., Miyajima, A., and Nolan, G.P. (1995) Efficient screening of retroviral cDNA expression libraries. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 92, 9146–9150.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Normolle, D.P. (1993) An algorithm for robust non-linear analysis of radioimmu-noassays and other bioassays. Stat Med 12, 2025–2042.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Serguei V. Kozlov
    • 1
  1. 1.Cancer and Developmental Biology LaboratoryNational Cancer Institute at FrederickFrederickUSA

Personalised recommendations