The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Limitations of MTT and MTS-Based Assays for Measurement of Antiproliferative Activity of Green Tea Polyphenols
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: The chemopreventive effect of green tea polyphenols, such as (-)-epigallocatechin-3-gallate (EGCG), has been well demonstrated in cell culture studies. However, a wide range of IC(50) concentrations has been observed in published studies of the anti-proliferative activity of EGCG from different laboratories. Although the susceptibility to EGCG treatment is largely dependent on cancer cell type, the particular cell viability and proliferation assays utilized may significantly influence quantitative results reported in the literature. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We compared five widely used methods to measure cell proliferation and viability after EGCG treatment using LNCaP prostate cancer cells and MCF-7 breast cancer cells. Both methods using dyes to quantify adenosine triphosphate (ATP) and deoxynucleic acid (DNA) showed accuracy in the measurement of viable cells when compared to trypan blue assay and results showed good linear correlation (r = 0.95). However, the use of MTT (3-(4,5-Dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide) and MTS (3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-5-(3-carboxymethoxyphenyl)-2-(4-sulfophenyl)-2H-tetrazolium) as indicators of metabolically active mitochondria overestimated the number of viable cells by comparison with the ATP, DNA, or trypan blue determinations. As a result, the observed IC(50) concentration of EGCG was 2-fold higher using MTT and MTS compared to dyes quantifying ATP and DNA. In contrast, when cells were treated with apigenin MTT and MTS assays showed consistent results with ATP, DNA, or trypan blue assays. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: These results demonstrate that MTT and MTS -based assays will provide an underestimation of the anti-proliferative effect of EGCG, and suggest the importance of careful evaluation of the method for in vitro assessment of cell viability and proliferation depending on the chemical nature of botanical supplements.
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
Rai, Y., Pathak, R., Kumari, N., Sah, D. K., Pandey, S., Kalra, N., Soni, R., Dwarakanath, B. S., & Bhatt, A. N. (2018) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-018-19930-w · Cited by 352
Codocedo, J. F., Mera-Reina, C., Bor-Chian Lin, P., Fallen, P. B., Puntambekar, S. S., Casali, B. T., Jury-Garfe, N., Martinez, P., Lasagna-Reeves, C. A., & Landreth, G. E. (2024) · Cell Reports · doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2024.114488 · Cited by 52
Suraweera, T. L., Merlin, J. P. J., Dellaire, G., Xu, Z., & Rupasinghe, H. P. V. (2023) · International Journal of Molecular Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijms24043676 · Cited by 35
Hoogstraten, C. A., Smeitink, J. A. M., Russel, F. G. M., & Schirris, T. J. J. (2022) · Frontiers in Toxicology · doi:10.3389/ftox.2022.842396 · Cited by 30
Metadata
- Authors
- Wang, P., Henning, S. M., & Heber, D.
- Venue
- PLoS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2010-04-16
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- e10202
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2022532937
- Cited by
- 419
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 13.85
- 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: Limitations of MTT and MTS-Based Assays for Measurement of Antiproliferative Activity of Green Tea Polyphenols. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0010202
- The paper
- Wang, P., Henning, S. M., & Heber, D. (2010). Limitations of MTT and MTS-Based Assays for Measurement of Antiproliferative Activity of Green Tea Polyphenols. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0010202
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.