CALCIUM OXALATE CRYSTAL ATTACHMENT TO CULTURED KIDNEY EPITHELIAL CELL LINES

Abstract

Purpose Cultured kidney epithelial cell lines have frequently been used in urolithiasis research, and in particular in studies related to the interactions between stone crystals and cell membranes. There is evidence that when epithelial cell lines are transformed or serially passed to immortalize them, they experience changes in both cell physiology and morphology. Stone research utilizing cell cultures is frequently necessary due to the lack of an animal model for spontaneous stone disease. However, the interpretation of these cell culture research studies might be clouded by any significant differences in cell physiology between primary cells and continuous cell cultures. Therefore, the present study was conducted to compare calcium oxalate monohydrate (COM) crystal attachment to two primary kidney epithelial cell lines and to various continuous cell lines. Materials and Methods The cell lines surveyed were primary mouse proximal tubule cells (pMPT), primary inner medullary collecting duct cells (pIMCD), semi-continuous inner medullary collecting duct cells (cIMCD), BSC-1 cells, COS-1 cells, LLC-PK 1 cells, MDCK cells, NRK-52E cells, and OK cells. All cell lines were cultured under identical conditions and the amount of COM attachment was measured using radioactive labeled COM crystals. Results COM crystal interaction with continuous kidney epithelial cells varied by a factor of two among the different cell lines. In general, cells that grew as regular, confluent cell monolayers, such as pMPT, pIMCD and cIMCD cells, exhibited the lowest levels of crystal attachment. Neither changes in membrane fluidity nor loss of normal epithelial cell membrane asymmetry seemed to correlate well with crystal attachment. After nine days of continuous cell culture, COM attachment to cIMCD cells dropped by 61 percent while crystal attachment to MDCK cells remained unchanged. It is unclear what makes these cell lines more resistant to crystal attachment compared to continuous cell lines. Conclusions The significant difference in COM attachment between primary kidney epithelial cells and continuous epithelial cell cultures and the apparent differences in growth morphology between primary and continuous cell cultures must be considered when selecting a cell line for use in kidney stone research. Comparison of cIMCD cells and MDCK cells during extended culture time revealed one possible explanation for the differences in COM attachment: the formation of a mature, end-differentiated, non-dividing cell monolayer could protect the cells from crystal attachment.