Both of the cell lines are derived from Intestinal cancer, Caco-2 differentiates to absorptive type of cell while the HT-29 to mucus secreting cells, the two major types of cell in the intestine. So the differentiation markers are different. The ref. may be of help for details. People have also used co-cultures for this reason, you may check the refs. 

http://www.fupress.net/index.php/ijae/article/view/15900/14886

http://bmccellbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2121-7-20

Hii Jin, may be this article backround can answer the differences between HT-29 and Caco-2 cells. good luck for your research.

Both of the cell lines are derived from Intestinal cancer, Caco-2 differentiates to absorptive type of cell while the HT-29 to mucus secreting cells, the two major types of cell in the intestine. So the differentiation markers are different. The ref. may be of help for details. People have also used co-cultures for this reason, you may check the refs. 

http://www.fupress.net/index.php/ijae/article/view/15900/14886

http://bmccellbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2121-7-20

Abstract

Enniatins (ENs) are ionophoric, phytotoxic, antihelminthic, and antibiotic compounds of hexadepsipeptidic structure produced by several strains of Fusarium spp. The cytotoxicity effect of the ENs A, A1, A2, B, B1, B4 and J3 was compared on three tumor cell lines, the human epithelial colorectal adenocarcinoma (Caco-2), the human colon carcinoma (HT-29), and the human liver carcinoma (Hep-G2). The endpoint evaluated was the mitochondrial integrity by using the MTT assays, after 24 and 48 h of incubation. The IC50 value for EN A2 on Caco-2 cells, after 24 h exposure, was 18.7 ± 4.5 μM and decrease to 2.6 ± 0.7 μM at 48 h of incubation. However, ENs A, A1, B1 and B4 exert pronounced cytotoxic effects in all the cell lines tested by the MTT assay after 24 and 48 h of incubation. The EN A1 demonstrated to be the most cytotoxic ENs tested. Moreover, no statistical differences were found between the IC50 values obtained for EN A1 on Caco-2, HT-29 and Hep-G2, with IC50 values ranging from 9.1 ± 2.2 μM to 12.3 ± 4.3 μM at 24 h and decreasing in a range variable from 1.4 ± 0.7 μM to 2.7 ± 0.8 μM at 48 h. On the other hand, EN A, B1 and B4 showed lower cytotoxicity, but in a similar range as the IC50 values reported on HT-29 (IC50 values (24 h): 16.8 ± 4.3–26.2 ± 6.7 μM), Caco-2 (IC50 values (24 h): 19.5 ± 4.1 μM) and Hep-G2 (IC50 values (24 h): 23.4 ± 5.6–26.2 ± 7.6 μM) cells. Cytotoxic effect with a 48 h of incubation revealed also a significant toxicity of ENs A (IC50 values ranged from 8.2 ± 1.8 to 11.4 ± 4.6 μM), B1(IC50 values variables from 3.7 ± 0.7 to 11.5 ± 5.3 μM) and B4 (IC50 of 4.5 ± 2.9–15.0 ± 4.0 μM). In summary, this study demonstrated that ENs can exert toxic activity at low micromolar concentrations in mammalian cells.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691511002201

http://ajpregu.physiology.org/content/293/3/R1069.short

Article The effects of an antioxidative pentapeptide derived from ch...

Dear Yan Jin,

here is the answer about difference btween HT-19 and CaCo-2 cells:

Human colon carcinoma cell lines HT-29 and Caco-2

The human colon carcinoma cell lines HT - 29 and Caco-2 were established by Jorgen Fogh (Memo-rial sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York) in 1964 and 1974, respectively [1,2]. The y have gain-ed increasing attention in recent years, following the finding that in culture they were able to express differentiation features which are characteristic o f mature intestinal cells, such as enterocytes or mucus cells. To date, these cell lines are the only ones to have been shown to express such differentiation characteristics, and they already appear to be valuable in vitro tools for studies related to intestinal cell function and differentiation. This is all the more so, since cultured cell lines originating from nor - anal small intestine and colon, which should have been ideal tools for such purposes, have been shown not to be reliable, because o f their inabilities to develop any o f the differentiation characteristics o f mature intestinal cells [3,4].

Until recently HT - 29 cells have mainly been used for studies related to glucose metabolism and hor-mone receptors. As most malignant epithelial cells, HT - 29 have been shown to have an impaired glu-cose metabolism, with high rates o f glucose con-sumption and lactic acid production [5] and a moderate degree o f glycogen accumulation [6, 7].

numbe r o f hormon e or peptide receptors has been found to be present in these cells, such as func-tional receptors for the vasoactive intestinal pep-tide (VIP) [8 - 10], alpha-2-adrenergic receptors [1 I, 121 or receptors for insulin [13], E G F [14], neu-rotensin [15], prostaglandins and catecholami-nes [8]. All these studies were performed with cells grown under standard culture conditions, i.e., in the presence o f glucose and serum. Under such conditions, HT - 29 cells are undifferentiated: mor - phologically they grow as a multilayer o f unpola-rized undifferentiated cells (Fig. la) ; functionally they do not express any particular characteristic o f intestinal epithelial cells [16, 17].

HT-29 cells, however, are able to express various differentiation characteristics under the influence o f modifications o f the culture medium or o f the addition o f differentiation inducers.

When HT - 29 cells are grown in the absence o f ghtcose they express a typical enterocytic differentiation. This was primarily reported for HT - 29 cells grown in a culture medium in which galactose was substituted for glucose [16] and further observed for HT-29 cells adapted to grow in the total absence o f hexoses [17] or in a medium in which inosine or uridine were substituted for glucose [18]. Whatever the permissive conditions, the same pattern o f differentiation was observed: the differentiation process is growth-related, starting after confluence (around the 15th day) ; from this stage on, the cells form a polarized monolayer with the presence o f tight junctions and a typical apical brush border (Fig. Ib) [16, 17]; proteins which are normally associated with the cytoskeleton o f intestinal brush border microvilli, such as villin [19, 20], are present in the brush border o f the cells [21]; hydrolases which are normally present on the membrane of the small intestine brush borde r microvilli, but absent fro m the normal colon [22], are surprisingly asso-ciated with the brush border microvilli o f these enterocyte-like differentiated colonic cells; they include sucrase-isomaltase, aminopeptidase N, dipeptidylpeptidase-IV, and alkaline phosphatase [16 - 18] . After confluence, the activities o f the dif-ferent enzymes increase linearly up to maximum values which are reached after 30 days in culture [17, 18]. Although these enzymes are present, their activities are much lower than those observed in the normal small intestine [23].

References

1 Fogh J. & Trempe G. (1975) in: Huntan Ttunor Cells in vitro, (Fogh J., ed., Plenum Press) New York, 1975, pp. 115-141

2 Fogh J., Fogh J.M. & Orfeo T. (1977) J. NatL Can-cer Inst. 59, 221-226

3 Quaroni A. & May R.J. (1980) in: Methods in Cell Biology (Harris C.C., Trump B.F. & Stoner G.D., eds.) Vol 21B, Academic Press, New York, pp. 403-427

4 Quaroni A., Wands J., Trelstad R.L. & Isselbacher K.J. (1979) J. Cell Biol. 80, 248-265

5 Rousset M., Paris H., Chevalier G., Terrain B., Murat J.C. & Zweibaum A. (1984) Cancer Res. 44, 154-160

6 Rousset M., Chevalier G., Rousset J.P., Dussaulx E., & Zweibaum A. (1979) CancerRes. 39, 531-534

7 Rousset M., Zweibaum A., & Fogh J. (1981) Can-cer Res. 41, 1165-1170

8 Laburthe M., Rousset M., Boissard C., Chevalier G., Zweibaum A., & Rosselin G. (1978) Pro& Natl. Acad. Sei. USA 75, 2772-2775

9 Marvaldi J., Mangeat P., Air Ahmed O., Coeroli C. & Marchis-Mouren G. (1979) Biochim. Biophys. Act a 588, 12-19

10 Rousset M., Laburthe M., Chevalier G., Boissard C., Rosselin G., & Zweibaum A. (1981) FEB S Lett. 126, 38-40

11 Bouscarel B., Cortinovis C., Carpene C., Murat J.C.

& Paris H. (1985) Eur. J. Pltarmacol. 107, 223-231

12 Paris H., Bouscarel B., Cortinovis C. &Murat J.C. (1985) FEB S Lett. 184, 82-86

13 Forgue-Lafitte M.E., Horvat A. & Rosselin G. (1979) Mol. Cell Endocrinol. 14, 123-130

14 Kitabgi P., Poustis A., Zweibaum A., & Freychet P. (1979) in: Hormon e Receptors in Digestion and Nutrition (Rosselin G., Fromageot P. & Bonfils S., eds.) Elsevier/North Holland Biomedical Press, Amsterdam, pp. 255-260

15 Kitabgi P., Poustis C., Granier C., Van Rietscho-ten J., Rivier J., Morgat J.L. & Freychet P. (1980) Mol. Plzarmaeol. 18, 11-19

16 Pinto M., Appay M.D., Simon-Assmann P., Che-valier G., Dracopoli N., Fogh J. & Zweibaum A. (1982) Biol. Cell. 44, 193-196

17 Zweibaum A., Pinto M., Chevalier G., Dussaulx E., Triadou N., Lacroix B., Haffen K., Brun J.L. & Rousset M. (1985) J. Cell. Physiol. 122, 21-29

18 Wice B.M., Trugnan G., Pinto M., Rousset M., Che-valier G., Dussaulx E., Lacroix B. & Zweibaum A. (1985) J. Biol. Cltem. 260, 139-146

19 Bretscher A. & Weber K. (1979) Proc. Natl. Acad. SoL USA 76, 2321-2325

20 Bretscher A., & Weber K. (1980) Cell20, 839-847 21 Robine S., Huet C., Moll R., Sahuquillo-Merino C.,

Coudrier E., Zweibaum A., & Louvard D. (1985)

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 82, 8488-8492

22 Kenny A.J. & Maroux S. (1982) PhysioL Rev. 62, 91-128

23 Zweibaum A., Triadou N., Kedinger M., Augeron C., Robine-Leon S., Pinto M., Rousset M. & Hal-fen K. (1983) Int. J. Cancer 32, 407-412

24 Alderman E.M., Lobb R.R. & Fett J.W. (1985) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 82, 5771-5775

25 Fett J.W., Strydom D.J., Lobb R.R., Alderman E.M. & Vallee B.L. (1985) Biochemistry 24, 965-975

26 Zweibaum A., Rousset M., Pinto M., Chevalier G., Dussaulx E., & Brun J.L. (1982) Biol. Cell. 45, 91

27 Augeron C. & Laboisse C. (1984) Cancer Res. 44, 3961-3969

28 Augeron C., Maoret J.J., Laboisse C. & Grasset E. (1986) in: International Symposhml "25 Years o f Research on the Brush Border Membrane and Sodiunt-coupled Transport ", Aussois, September 18-20, 1985 (Alvarado F. & Van Os P., eds.) Else-vier, Amsterdam, (in press)

29 Rousset M., Laburthe M., Pinto M., Chevalier G., Rouyer-Fessard C., Dussaulx E., Trugnan G., Boige N., Brun J.L. & Zweibaum A. (1985) J. Cell. Physiol. 123, 377-385

30 Pinto M., Robine-Leon S., Appay M.D., Kedinger M., Triadou N., Dussaulx E., Lacroix B., Simon-Assmann P., Haffen K., Fogh J. & Zweibaum A. (1983) Biol. Cell. 47, 323-330

31 Hauri H.P., Sterchi E.E., Bienz D., Fransen J. & Marxer A. (1985) J. Cell Biol. 101, 838-851

32 Lacroix B., Kedinger M., Simon-Assmann P., Rous-set M., Zweibaum A. & Haffen K. (1984) Early Httm. Dev. 9, 95-103

I hope, that it is clear enough. If not, please ask for more.

Sincerely yours,

Dr. Bratko Filipič

Email: [email protected]