The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Rapid screening of potential autophagic inductor agents using mammalian cell lines
Abstract
Recent progress in understanding the molecular basis of autophagy has demonstrated its importance in several areas of human health. Affordable screening techniques with higher sensitivity and specificity to identify autophagy are, however, needed to move the field forward. In fact, only laborious and/or expensive methodologies such as electron microscopy, dye‐staining of autophagic vesicles, and LC3‐II immunoblotting or immunoassaying are available for autophagy identification. Aiming to fulfill this technical gap, we describe here the association of three widely used assays to determine cell viability – Crystal Violet staining (CVS), 3‐[4, 5‐dimethylthiaolyl]‐2, 5‐diphenyl‐tetrazolium bromide (MTT) reduction, and neutral red uptake (NRU) – to predict autophagic cell death in vitro. The conceptual framework of the method is the superior uptake of NR in cells engaging in autophagy. NRU was then weighted by the average of MTT reduction and CVS allowing the calculation of autophagic arbitrary units (AAU), a numeric variable that correlated specifically with the autophagic cell death. The proposed strategy is very useful for drug discovery, allowing the investigation of potential autophagic inductor agents through a rapid screening using mammalian cell lines B16‐F10, HaCaT, HeLa, MES‐SA, and MES‐SA/Dx5 in a unique single microplate.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“The duration of the bafilomycin A1 treatment (or any other inhibitor of autophagic flux such as CQ) needs to be relatively short (1)(2)(3)(4) h) [313] to allow comparisons of the amount of LC3 that is lysosomally degraded over a given time frame under one treatment condition to another treatment condition.”
From Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition) 1 (2021) · cites this paper as [313]
Citations
Cites
How to Interpret LC3 Immunoblotting
Mizushima, N., & Yoshimori, T. (2007) · Autophagy · doi:10.4161/auto.4600 · Cited by 2,595
Regulation of the aging process by autophagy.
Salminen, A., & Kaarniranta, K. (2009) · Trends in Molecular Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.molmed.2009.03.004 · Cited by 270
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 25
- 10.1038/nature06639 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1600-0625.2010.01157.x · DOI
- 10.1038/cr.2011.152 · DOI
- 10.1002/path.2697 · DOI
- 10.1002/path.2694 · DOI
- 10.4161/auto.5338 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1038/bjc.1988.125 · DOI
- 10.1016/0887-2333(89)90039-8 · DOI
- 10.1016/0378-4274(85)90046-3 · DOI
- Geng Y., 2010, Chloroquine‐induced autophagic vacuole accumulation and cell death in glioma cells is p53 independent., Neuro Oncol., 12, 473
- 10.1016/j.exphem.2007.12.008 · DOI
- 10.1038/sj.bjc.6600675 · DOI
- Zhang X. D., 2004, Staurosporine induces apoptosis of melanoma by both caspase‐dependent and ‐independent apoptotic pathways., Mol. Cancer Ther., 3, 187, 10.1158/1535-7163.187.3.2 · DOI
- 10.1055/s-0029-1186102 · DOI
- Paglin S., 2001, A novel response of cancer cells to radiation involves autophagy and formation of acidic vesicles., Cancer Res., 61, 439
- Manders E. M. M., 1993, Measurement of co‐localization of objects in dual‐colour confocal images., J. Microsc., 375, 10.1111/j.1365-2818.1993.tb03313.x · DOI
- 10.1016/j.biocel.2004.02.005 · DOI
- 10.1097/CAD.0b013e328330fd90 · DOI
- 10.1038/cdd.2012.10 · DOI
- 10.1038/nrm2708 · DOI
- 10.1038/nature08455 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.4161/auto.6.2.11127 · DOI
- 10.1167/iovs.10-5278 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1471-4159.2010.06838.x · DOI
- 10.1038/ncb1192 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition).
Klionsky, D. J., Abdelmohsen, K., Abe, A., Abedin, M. J., Abeliovich, H., Acevedo Arozena, A., Adachi, H., Adams, C. M., Adams, P. D., Adeli, K., et al. (2016) · Autophagy · doi:10.1080/15548627.2015.1100356 · Cited by 5,894
Self-citationGuidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition) 1
Klionsky, D. J., Abdel-Aziz, A. K., Abdelfatah, S., Abdellatif, M., Abdoli, A., Abel, S., Abeliovich, H., Abildgaard, M. H., Abudu, Y. P., Acevedo-Arozena, A., et al. (2021) · Autophagy · doi:10.1080/15548627.2020.1797280 · Cited by 2,897
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Martins, W. K., Severino, D., Souza, C., Stolf, B. S., & Baptista, M. S.
- Venue
- Biotechnology Journal
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2013-03-21
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 730-737
- ISSN
- 1860-6768
- 1860-7314
- Cited by
- 33
- References
- 2
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review