Comparison between the clonogenic, MTT, and SRB assays for determining radiosensitivity in a panel of human bladder cancer cell lines and a ureteral cell line.

D Banasiak, A R Barnetson, R A Odell, H Mameghan, P J Russell
{"title":"Comparison between the clonogenic, MTT, and SRB assays for determining radiosensitivity in a panel of human bladder cancer cell lines and a ureteral cell line.","authors":"D Banasiak,&nbsp;A R Barnetson,&nbsp;R A Odell,&nbsp;H Mameghan,&nbsp;P J Russell","doi":"10.1002/(SICI)1520-6823(1999)7:2<77::AID-ROI3>3.0.CO;2-M","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Using a series of human bladder cancer cell lines and an immortalised normal ureteral cell line, radiosensitivities measured by three different methods after a single dose of X-radiation are compared. Clear differences between cell survival curves obtained using the clonogenic, microtetrazoline (MTT) and sulforhodamine B (SRB) assays are shown. The most sensitive of the assays investigated was the clonogenic assay. The MTT and SRB assays were found to be relatively insensitive especially at lower radiation levels, suggesting that these assays may not be suitable for predicting therapeutic dose schedules in vivo, but will be important for investigating radio-sensitivity in cell lines with very low plating efficiencies. Each assay discriminated between a range of sensitivities in the cell lines examined, and with some minor differences, the ordering of sensitivities using the three assays was similar. Possible explanations for the differences between results obtained with the three assays are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":20894,"journal":{"name":"Radiation oncology investigations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1999-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6823(1999)7:2<77::AID-ROI3>3.0.CO;2-M","citationCount":"63","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Radiation oncology investigations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6823(1999)7:2<77::AID-ROI3>3.0.CO;2-M","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 63

Abstract

Using a series of human bladder cancer cell lines and an immortalised normal ureteral cell line, radiosensitivities measured by three different methods after a single dose of X-radiation are compared. Clear differences between cell survival curves obtained using the clonogenic, microtetrazoline (MTT) and sulforhodamine B (SRB) assays are shown. The most sensitive of the assays investigated was the clonogenic assay. The MTT and SRB assays were found to be relatively insensitive especially at lower radiation levels, suggesting that these assays may not be suitable for predicting therapeutic dose schedules in vivo, but will be important for investigating radio-sensitivity in cell lines with very low plating efficiencies. Each assay discriminated between a range of sensitivities in the cell lines examined, and with some minor differences, the ordering of sensitivities using the three assays was similar. Possible explanations for the differences between results obtained with the three assays are discussed.

克隆源、MTT和SRB测定一组人膀胱癌细胞系和输尿管细胞系放射敏感性的比较
利用一系列人类膀胱癌细胞系和一个永生化的正常输尿管细胞系,比较了单剂量x射线照射后用三种不同方法测量的放射敏感性。使用克隆性、微四氮唑啉(MTT)和磺胺嘧啶B (SRB)测定获得的细胞存活曲线之间存在明显差异。其中最敏感的是克隆性测定法。MTT和SRB检测被发现在较低的辐射水平下相对不敏感,这表明这些检测可能不适合预测体内的治疗剂量计划,但对于研究极低镀效率的细胞系的放射敏感性将是重要的。每一种测定法都在检测细胞系的一系列敏感性之间进行区分,并且有一些细微的差异,使用三种测定法的敏感性排序是相似的。讨论了三种测定法所得结果之间差异的可能解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信