4.5 Article

Monitoring cellular accumulation of 3′-deoxy-3′-fluorothymidine (FLT) and its monophosphate metabolite (FLT-MP) by LC-MS/MS as a measure of cell proliferation in vitro

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jchromb.2011.08.024

关键词

Cell proliferation assay; Detection of tumor growth; 3 '-Deoxy-3 '-fluortrhymidine (FLT); 3 '-Deoxy-3 '-fluorothymidine monophosphate (FLT-MP); Micron late format; LC-MS/MS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Accurate measurement of in vitro cell growth is critical for oncology drug development, but cell counting and the most accurate indirect proliferation assays are impractical. Here, we describe a robust alternative method that monitors proliferating cell thymidine kinase 1 (TK1) activity via LC-MS/MS quantification of 3'-deoxy-3'-fluorothymidine (FLT) and its monophosphate metabolite FLT-MP. LNCaP prostate cancer cells were cultured at four densities (20,000; 10,000; 5000; and 500 cells/well) and incubated with 2000 ng/mL FLT in multi-well plates. Internal standards were FLT-d3 for FLT and d4-thymidine for FLT-MP. In culture medium, peak area ratios of FLT to FLT-d3 and FLT-MP to d4-thymidine were linear over the range 0.25-100 ng/mL (r(2) >= 0.998). Accuracy for quality controls was between -7.3% and 6.3% for FLT, and from -3.3% to 1.7% for FLT-MP. Quality control precision was from 2.4% to 5.7% for FLT and 3.2% to 7.5% for FLT-MP. The limit of quantification was 0.25 ng/mL, with good control results (precision of 9.6% for FLT and 14.8% for FLT-MP). FLT-MP formation was linearly proportional to cell number from 500 to 20,000 cells/well 1 h after FLT addition. FLT-MP and ATP generation were comparable in LNCaP cells exposed to cell cycle inhibitor drugs (Spearman r = 0.925, p < 0.0001), demonstrating assay suitability for drug screening. This fit for purpose method is amenable to analysis of tumor tissue extracts, and should enable direct assessment of in vitro-in vivo relationships in animal models of cancer. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据