Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 263

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The E-screen assay: a comparison of different MCF7 cell stocks.

Open access
Villalobos, M, Olea, N, Brotons, J A, Olea-Serrano, M F, Ruiz de Almodovar, J M, Pedraza, V·1995·Environmental Health Perspectives

Abstract

MCF7 human breast cancer cells have been studied extensively as a model for hormonal effects on breast cancer cell growth and specific protein synthesis. Because the proliferative effect of natural estrogen is considered the hallmark of estrogen action, it was proposed that this property be used to determine whether a substance is an estrogen. The E-screen assay, developed for this purpose, is based on the ability of MCF7 cells to proliferate in the presence of estrogens. The aim of our study was to characterize the response of four MCF7 cell stocks (BUS, ATCC, BB, and BB104) and determine which of them performed best in the E-screen test. The four stocks assayed were distinguishable by their biological behavior. In the absence of estrogen, MCF7 BUS cells stopped proliferating and accumulated in the G0/G1 phase of the cell cycle; estrogen receptors increased, progesterone receptors decreased, and small amounts of pS2 protein were secreted. Of all the MCF7 stocks tested, MCF7 BUS cells showed the highest proliferative response to estradiol-17 beta: cell yields increased up to sixfold over those of nontreated cells in a 144-hr period. The differences between estrogen-supplemented and nonsupplemented MCF7 BUS cells were due mostly to G0/G1 proliferative arrest mediated by charcoal dextran-stripped serum. MCF7 BUS cell stocks and others showing a similar proliferative pattern should be chosen for use in the E-screen test, or whenever a proliferative effect of estrogen is to be demonstrated.

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 · 10.1289/ehp.95103844

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 263

Metadata

Authors
Villalobos, M., Olea, N., Brotons, J. A., Olea-Serrano, M. F., Ruiz de Almodovar, J. M., & Pedraza, V
Venue
Environmental Health Perspectives
Published
1995-09
Volume
103
Issue
9
Pages
844-850
ISSN
  • 0091-6765 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-9924
OpenAlex
W2037815393
Cited by
263
References
1
FWCI
6.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: The E-screen assay: a comparison of different MCF7 cell stocks. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1289/ehp.95103844
The paper
Villalobos, M., Olea, N., Brotons, J. A., Olea-Serrano, M. F., Ruiz de Almodovar, J. M., & Pedraza, V. (1995). The E-screen assay: a comparison of different MCF7 cell stocks. Environmental Health Perspectives. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.95103844

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.