4.0 Article

The neutral red assay can be used to evaluate cell viability during autophagy or in an acidic microenvironment in vitro

期刊

BIOTECHNIC & HISTOCHEMISTRY
卷 96, 期 4, 页码 302-310

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/10520295.2020.1802065

关键词

Cell viability; cytotoxicity; extracellular acidic pH; neutral red; ovarian cancer; pancreatic cancer

资金

  1. NIH [R01CA205941, R01CA212350, R01EB020125, R25CA134283]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study demonstrated that the neutral red staining method is effective for evaluating the effect of chemotherapeutic agents on cell viability under acidic pH(e) or hypoxic conditions.
Harsh conditions within the tumor microenvironment, such as hypoxia and extracellular acidic pH (pH(e)), inactivate some chemotherapies, which results in limited or no cytotoxicity. Standard MTT, ATPlite and protease assays that are used to determine the potency of newly developed drugs often give erroneous results when applied under hypoxic or acidic conditions. Therefore, development of a cytotoxicity assay that does not yield false positive or false negative results under circumstances of both hypoxia and acidic pH(e)is needed. We evaluated currently used cell viability assays as well as neutral red staining to assess viability of ovarian and pancreatic cancer cells grown in an acidic pH(e)microenvironment after treatment with carboplatin, gemcitabine or chloroquine. We validated cell viability using western blotting of pro-caspase-9 and cleaved-caspase-9, and LC3-I and - II. Standard cell viability assays indicated cell viability accurately at pH(e)7.4, but was not correlated with induction of apoptosis or autophagy at acidic pH(e). By contrast, our modified neutral red assay detected cell viability accurately over a range of pH(e)as demonstrated by its correlation with induction of apoptosis and autophagy. Neutral red staining is effective for evaluating the effect of chemotherapeutic agents on cell viability under acidic pH(e)or hypoxic conditions.

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

4.0
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