Use of cause-and-effect analysis to design a high-quality nanocytotoxicology assay
Open accessAbstract
An important consideration in developing standards and regulations that govern the production and use of commercial nanoscale materials is the development of robust and reliable measurements to monitor the potential adverse biological effects of such products. These measurements typically require cell-based and other biological assays that provide an assessment of the risks associated with the nanomaterial of interest. In this perspective, we describe the use of cause-and-effect (C&E) analysis to design robust, high quality cell-based assays to test nanoparticle-related cytotoxicity. C&E analysis of an assay system identifies the sources of variability that influence the test result. These sources can then be used to design control experiments that aid in establishing the validity of a test result. We demonstrate the application of C&E analysis to the commonly used 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-5-(3-carboxymethoxyphenyl)-2-(4-sulfophenyl)-2H-tetrazolium (MTS) cell-viability assay. This is the first time to our knowledge that C&E analysis has been used to characterize a cell-based toxicity assay. We propose the use of a 96-well plate layout which incorporates a range of control experiments to assess multiple factors such as nanomaterial interference, pipetting accuracy, cell seeding density, and instrument performance, and demonstrate the performance of the assay using the plate layout in a case study. While the plate layout was formulated specifically for the MTS assay, it is applicable to other cytotoxicity, ecotoxicity (i.e., bacteria toxicity), and nanotoxicity assays after assay-specific modifications.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Strict SOPs were employed using a sophisticated 96-well plate design that allowed detection of up to seven parameters of assay performance.
“Strict standard operating procedures (SOP) were employed using a sophisticated 96-well plate design that allowed detection of up to seven parameters of assay performance, including accuracy of multi-channel pipetting, cell handling/cell growth, and instrument performance (i.e. plate reader issues) (Rösslein et al., 2015).”
From In Vitro research Reproducibility: Keeping up High Standards (2019) · cites this paper as Rösslein et al., 2015
The “Design of the 96-Well Plate MTS Assay” section describes a 96-well layout with seven system-control experiments. The control-experiment sections identify checks for multichannel pipetting, cell growth and instrument performance. Our copy describes a detailed case-study method but does not establish that strict SOPs were employed; page numbers are unavailable. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Limbach, L. K., Li, Y., Grass, R. N., Brunner, T. J., Hintermann, M. A., Muller, M., Gunther, D., & Stark, W. J. (2005) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es051043o · Cited by 779 · see citing works
Nanotoxicology: An Interdisciplinary Challenge
Krug, H. F., & Wick, P. (2011) · Angewandte Chemie International Edition · doi:10.1002/anie.201001037 · Cited by 556 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Dirks, W., and Drexler, H. (2011) Online Verification of Human Cell Line Identity by STR DNA Typing, in Methods in Molecular Biology (Cree, I. A., Ed.), pp 45-55, Humana Press, Totowa, NJ.
- Brown, C. C. (1978) The Statistical Analysis of Dose-Effect Relationships, Principles of Ecotoxicology, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
In Vitro research Reproducibility: Keeping up High Standards
Hirsch, C., & Schildknecht, S. (2019) · Frontiers in Pharmacology · doi:10.3389/fphar.2019.01484 · Cited by 161 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Rösslein, M., Elliott, J. T., Salit, M., Petersen, E. J., Hirsch, C., Krug, H. F., & Wick, P.
- Affiliations
- National Institute of Standards and Technology (US)
- Corresponding author
- Elliott, John T.
- Venue
- Chemical Research in Toxicology
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2015-01-06
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 21-30
- ISSN
- 0893-228X (ISSN-L)
- 1520-5010
- OpenAlex
- W2327170366
- Cited by
- 81
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 5
- FWCI
- 4.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Chemical Research in Toxicology (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Competence Centre for Materials Science and Technology
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Nanoparticles: synthesis and applications
- Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal testing and alternatives
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Graphene and Nanomaterials Applications
- Keywords
- cause-and-effect analysis, nanoparticle toxicity, nanoparticle cytotoxicity, cell viability assay, MTS assay, assay design, assay variability, control experiments, cell seeding density, instrument performance, nanomaterial regulation
- MeSH terms
- Biological Assay, Cell Survival, Polystyrenes, Tetrazolium Salts, Thiazoles, Toxicity Tests, Cell Culture Techniques, Nanoparticles
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