Cited by 33

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

Martins, Waleska K., Severino, Divinomar, Souza, Cleidiane, Stolf, Beatriz S., Baptista, Maurício S.·2013·Biotechnology Journal

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

Crossref · 10.1002/biot.201200306

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 25

  1. 10.1038/nature06639 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1111/j.1600-0625.2010.01157.x · DOI
  3. 10.1038/cr.2011.152 · DOI
  4. 10.1002/path.2697 · DOI
  5. 10.1002/path.2694 · DOI
  6. 10.4161/auto.5338 · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.1038/bjc.1988.125 · DOI
  8. 10.1016/0887-2333(89)90039-8 · DOI
  9. 10.1016/0378-4274(85)90046-3 · DOI
  10. Geng Y., 2010, Chloroquine‐induced autophagic vacuole accumulation and cell death in glioma cells is p53 independent., Neuro Oncol., 12, 473
  11. 10.1016/j.exphem.2007.12.008 · DOI
  12. 10.1038/sj.bjc.6600675 · DOI
  13. 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
  14. 10.1055/s-0029-1186102 · DOI
  15. Paglin S., 2001, A novel response of cancer cells to radiation involves autophagy and formation of acidic vesicles., Cancer Res., 61, 439
  16. 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
  17. 10.1016/j.biocel.2004.02.005 · DOI
  18. 10.1097/CAD.0b013e328330fd90 · DOI
  19. 10.1038/cdd.2012.10 · DOI
  20. 10.1038/nrm2708 · DOI
  21. 10.1038/nature08455 · DOI · Paper page
  22. 10.4161/auto.6.2.11127 · DOI
  23. 10.1167/iovs.10-5278 · DOI · Paper page
  24. 10.1111/j.1471-4159.2010.06838.x · DOI
  25. 10.1038/ncb1192 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 33

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