4.1 Article

A comparison of four methods for determining viability in human dermal fibroblasts irradiated with blue light

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.vascn.2016.01.001

关键词

Blue light; Cell viability; Fibroblasts; Live/dead fluorescence; Methods; MTT; Neutral red; Phototherapy; Trypan blue

资金

  1. College of Health Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, USA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Several tests are available for assessing the viability of cells; however, there is a dearth of studies comparing the results obtained with each test. We compared the capability of four viability assays (3-[4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl]-2,5-diphenyl tetrazolium bromide (MTT), neutral red, trypan blue and live/dead fluorescence), to detect potential toxicity in fibroblasts irradiated with 470 nm blue light. Methods: Cells were irradiated at 3, 55, 110 and 220 J/cm(2), incubated for 24 h and viability assessed using each test. Results: MTT assay showed significant decreases in viability when cells were irradiated with 110 and 220 J/cm(2) energy fluence (dose) (89% and 57% viable cells, respectively; p < 0.0001, compared to control); likewise the trypan blue assay showed 42% and 46% viable cells (p < 0.0001). Neutral red assay revealed significant decrease in viability when cells were irradiated with 220 J/cm(2) (84% viable cells; p = 0.0008, compared to control). The live/dead fluorescence assay was less sensitive, evincing 91% and 95% viable cells after irradiation with 110 and 220 J/cm(2) respectively. Discussion: (1) The four assays differed in their levels of sensitivity to cell viability. (2) The adverse effect of increasing doses seems to manifest as alteration of mitochondrial metabolism, followed by lysosomal dysfunction, membrane disruption and finally loss of cell membrane integrity. (3) Overall, irradiation with 3 J/cm(2) or 55 J/cm(2) did not adversely affect cell viability. Thus, doses below 110 J/cm(2) appear safe. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.1
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