MbrlCatalogueTitleDetail

Do you wish to reserve the book?
Limitations of the 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyl-2H-tetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay when compared to three commonly used cell enumeration assays
Limitations of the 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyl-2H-tetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay when compared to three commonly used cell enumeration assays
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
You are currently in the queue to collect this book. You will be notified once it is your turn to collect the book.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Limitations of the 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyl-2H-tetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay when compared to three commonly used cell enumeration assays
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Title added to your shelf!
Title added to your shelf!
View what I already have on My Shelf.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to add the title to your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Do you wish to request the book?
Limitations of the 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyl-2H-tetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay when compared to three commonly used cell enumeration assays
Limitations of the 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyl-2H-tetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay when compared to three commonly used cell enumeration assays

Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
How would you like to get it?
We have requested the book for you! Sorry the robot delivery is not available at the moment
We have requested the book for you!
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Limitations of the 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyl-2H-tetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay when compared to three commonly used cell enumeration assays
Limitations of the 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyl-2H-tetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay when compared to three commonly used cell enumeration assays
Journal Article

Limitations of the 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyl-2H-tetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay when compared to three commonly used cell enumeration assays

2015
Request Book From Autostore and Choose the Collection Method
Overview
Background The tetrazolium-based MTT assay has long been regarded as the gold standard of cytotoxicity assays as it is highly sensitive and has been miniaturised for use as a high-throughput screening assay. However, various reports refer to interference by different test compounds, including the glycolysis inhibitor 3-bromopyruvate, with the conversion of the dye to coloured formazan crystals. This study assessed the linear range and reproducibility of three commonly used cell enumeration assays; the neutral red uptake (NRU), resazurin reduction (RES) and sulforhodamine B (SRB) assays, in comparison to the MTT assay. Interference between the MTT assay and three glycolysis inhibitors, 2-deoxyglucose, 3-bromopyruvate and lonidamine, was investigated. Results Data indicate that the NRU, RES and SRB assays showed the smallest variability across the linear range, while the largest variation was observed for the MTT assay. This implies that these assays would more accurately detect small changes in cell number than the MTT assay. The SRB assay provided the most reproducible results as indicated by the coefficient of determination after a limited number of experiments. The SRB assay also produced the lowest variance in the derived 50% inhibitory concentration (IC 50 ), while IC 50 concentrations of 3-bromopyruvate could not be detected using either the MTT or RES assays after 24 hours incubation. Interference in the MTT assay was observed for all three tested glycolysis inhibitors in a cell-free environment. No interferences were observed for the NRU, SRB or RES assays. Conclusions This study demonstrated that the MTT assay was not the best assay in a number of parameters that must be considered when a cell enumeration assay is selected: the MTT assay was less accurate in detecting changes in cell number as indicated by the variation observed in the linear range, had the highest variation when the IC 50 concentrations of the glycolysis inhibitors were determined, and interference between the MTT assay and all the glycolysis inhibitors tested were observed. The SRB assay performed best overall considering all of the parameters, suggesting that it is the most suitable assay for use in preclinical screening of novel therapeutic compounds with oxido-reductive potential.