The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparison of four different colorimetric and fluorometric cytotoxicity assays in a zebrafish liver cell line
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: A broad spectrum of cytotoxicity assays is currently used in the fields of (eco)toxicology and pharmacology. To choose an appropriate assay, different parameters like test compounds, detection mechanism, specificity, and sensitivity have to be considered. Furthermore, tissue or cell line can influence test performance. For zebrafish (Danio rerio), as emerging model organism, cell lines are now increasingly used, but few studies examined cytotoxicity in these cell systems. Therefore, we compared four cytotoxicity assays in the zebrafish liver cell line, ZFL, to test four differently acting model compounds. The tests comprised two colorimetric assays (MTT assay using 3-[4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl]-2,5-diphenyl tetrazolium bromide, and the LDH assay detecting lactate dehydrogenase activity) and two fluorometric assays (alamarBlue(R) using resazurin, and CFDA-AM based on 5-carboxyfluorescein diacetate acetoxymethyl ester). Model compounds were the pharmaceutical Tamoxifen, its metabolite 4-Hydroxy-Tamoxifen, the fungicide Flusilazole and the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon Benzo[a]pyrene. RESULTS: All four assays performed well in the ZFL cells and led to reproducible dose-response curves for all test compounds. Effective concentrations causing 10% or 50% loss of cell viability (EC10 and EC50 values) varied by a maximum factor of 7.0 for the EC10 values and a maximum factor of 1.8 for the EC50 values. The EC values were not statistically different between the four assays, which is due to the assessed unspecific effects of the compounds. However, most often, the MTT assay and LDH assay showed the highest and lowest EC values, respectively. Nevertheless, the LDH assay showed the highest intra- and inter-assay variabilities and the lowest signal-to-noise ratios. In contrast to MTT, the other three assays have the advantage of being non-destructive, easy to handle, and less time consuming. Furthermore, AB and CFDA-AM can be combined on the same set of cells without damaging the cells, allowing later on their use for the investigation of other endpoints. CONCLUSION: We recommend the alamarBlue and CFDA-AM assays for cytotoxicity assessment in ZFL cells, which can be applied either singly or combined.
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
Cites
O'Brien, J., Wilson, I., Orton, T., & Pognan, F. (2000) · European Journal of Biochemistry · doi:10.1046/j.1432-1327.2000.01606.x · Cited by 3,446
Cited by
Guidelines for cell viability assays
Kamiloglu, S., Sari, G., Ozdal, T., & Capanoglu, E. (2020) · Food Frontiers · doi:10.1002/fft2.44 · Cited by 769
Cell viability assessment using the Alamar blue assay: A comparison of 2D and 3D cell culture models
Bonnier, F., Keating, M. E., Wróbel, T. P., Majzner, K., Baranska, M., Garcia-Munoz, A., Blanco, A., & Byrne, H. J. (2015) · Toxicology in Vitro · doi:10.1016/j.tiv.2014.09.014 · Cited by 276
Metadata
- Authors
- Bopp, S. K., & Lettieri, T.
- Venue
- BMC Pharmacology
- Published
- 2008-05-30
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 8-8
- ISSN
- 1471-2210 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2072991077
- Cited by
- 176
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 1.84
- 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 four different colorimetric and fluorometric cytotoxicity assays in a zebrafish liver cell line. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1471-2210-8-8
- The paper
- Bopp, S. K., & Lettieri, T. (2008). Comparison of four different colorimetric and fluorometric cytotoxicity assays in a zebrafish liver cell line. BMC Pharmacology. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2210-8-8
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.