The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Comparison of the Usefulness of the MTT, ATP, and Calcein Assays to Predict the Potency of Cytotoxic Agents in Various Human Cancer Cell Lines
Open accessAbstract
Cell viability assays are important tools in oncological research and clinical practice to assess the tumor cell sensitivity of individual patients. The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the comparability of 3 widely used assays (MTT, ATP, calcein assays) by principal component analysis. The study included 4 different cytostatics (cisplatin, docetaxel, doxorubicin, vinblastine) and 3 different human cancer cell lines (MCF-7, A2780, doxorubicin resistant A2780adr). Ninety-three percent of the total variance of all variables included in the principal component analysis (resulting from 3 cell lines and 3 assays) could be explained by 1 principal component. Factor loadings were > 0.937 except for the variable MTT-A2780adr, which was 0.872. These results indicate the similarity of the 3 assays. A 2nd principal component analysis included literature data and showed accordance of data from this study and the literature. The MTT assay was further improved as a high-throughput screening-capable assay. The ATP assay is able to detect effects of cytostatics already after 1 h incubation. The determination of resistance factors allowed to differentiate cytostatics into P-gp or non-P-gp substrates. In conclusion, this study provides improved microplate reader-based cell viability assays and sets a statistically solid basis for a future comparison of data obtained in different laboratories by any of the 3 assays.
Overview
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
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Adaptation of High-Throughput Screening in Drug Discovery—Toxicological Screening Tests
Szymański, P., Markowicz, M., & Mikiciuk-Olasik, E. (2011) · International Journal of Molecular Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijms13010427 · Cited by 454
In Vitro Cytotoxicity and Cell Viability Assays: Principles, Advantages, and Disadvantages
Aslantürk, Ö. S. (2018) · Genotoxicity - A Predictable Risk to Our Actual World · doi:10.5772/intechopen.71923 · Cited by 408
Three-dimensional cellular microarray for high-throughput toxicology assays
Lee, M.-Y., Kumar, R. A., Sukumaran, S. M., Hogg, M. G., Clark, D. S., & Dordick, J. S. (2008) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0708756105 · Cited by 314
Fernandes, T. G., Diogo, M. M., Clark, D. S., Dordick, J. S., & Cabral, J. M. S. (2009) · Trends in Biotechnology · doi:10.1016/j.tibtech.2009.02.009 · Cited by 285
Generation of magnetic nonviral gene transfer agents and magnetofection in vitro
Mykhaylyk, O., Antequera, Y. S., Vlaskou, D., & Plank, C. (2007) · Nature Protocols · doi:10.1038/nprot.2007.352 · Cited by 272
Metadata
- Authors
- Mueller, H., Kassack, M. U., & Wiese, M.
- Venue
- SLAS Discovery
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2004-09
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 506-515
- ISSN
- 2472-5552 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2138733574
- Cited by
- 226
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 10.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of the Usefulness of the MTT, ATP, and Calcein Assays to Predict the Potency of Cytotoxic Agents in Various Human Cancer Cell Lines. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/1087057104265386
- The paper
- Mueller, H., Kassack, M. U., & Wiese, M. (2004). Comparison of the Usefulness of the MTT, ATP, and Calcein Assays to Predict the Potency of Cytotoxic Agents in Various Human Cancer Cell Lines. SLAS Discovery. https://doi.org/10.1177/1087057104265386
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.