4.6 Article

A rapid, efficient, and economic device and method for the isolation and purification of mouse islet cells

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 12, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0171618

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Nature and Science Funding of China [81370882]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Liaoning Province [2013021058]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rapid, efficient, and economic method for the isolation and purification of islets has been pursued by numerous islet-related researchers. In this study, we compared the advantages and disadvantages of our developed patented method with those of commonly used conventional methods (Ficoll-400, 1077, and handpicking methods). Cell viability was assayed using Trypan blue, cell purity and yield were assayed using diphenylthiocarbazone, and islet function was assayed using acridine orange/ethidium bromide staining and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay-glucose stimulation testing 4 days after cultivation. The results showed that our islet isolation and purification method required 12 +/- 3 min, which was significantly shorter than the time required in Ficoll-400, 1077, and HPU groups (34 +/- 3, 41 +/- 4, and 30 +/- 4 min, respectively; P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in islet viability among the four groups. The islet purity, function, yield, and cost of our method were superior to those of the Ficoll-400 and 1077 methods, but inferior to the handpicking method. However, the handpicking method may cause wrist injury and visual impairment in researchers during large-scale islet isolation (>1000 islets). In summary, the MCT method is a rapid, efficient, and economic method for isolating and purifying murine islet cell clumps. This method overcomes some of the shortcomings of conventional methods, showing a relatively higher quality and yield of islets within a shorter duration at a lower cost. Therefore, the current method provides researchers with an alternative option for islet isolation and should be widely generalized.

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

4.6
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