Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 176

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 access
Bopp, Stephanie K, Lettieri, Teresa·2008·BMC Pharmacology

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1471-2210-8-8

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 176

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.