Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 190

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Comparison of MTT and CVS Assays for the Assessment of Anticancer Agent Interactions

Open access
Śliwka, Lidia, Wiktorska, Katarzyna, Suchocki, Piotr, Milczarek, Małgorzata, Mielczarek, Szymon, Lubelska, Katarzyna, Cierpiał, Tomasz, Łyżwa, Piotr, Kiełbasiński, Piotr, Jaromin, Anna, Flis, Anna, Chilmonczyk, Zdzisław·2016·PLOS ONE

Abstract

Multiple in vitro tests are widely applied to assess the anticancer activity of new compounds, including their combinations and interactions with other drugs. The MTT (3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyl tetrazolium bromide) assay is one of the most commonly used assays to assess the efficacy and interactions of anticancer agents. However, it can be significantly influenced by compounds that modify cell metabolism and reaction conditions. Therefore, several assays are sometimes used to screen for potential anticancer drugs. However, the majority of drug interactions are evaluated only with this single method. The aim of our studies was to verify whether the choice of an assay has an impact on determining the type of interaction and to identify the source of discrepancies. We compared the accuracy of MTT and CVS (crystal violet staining) assays in the interaction of two compounds characterized by similar anticancer activity: isothiocyanates (ITCs) and Selol. Confocal microscopy studies were carried out to assess the influence of these compounds on the reactive oxygen species (ROS) level, mitochondrial membrane potential, dead-to-live cell ratio and MTT-tetrazolium salt reduction rate. The MTT assay was less reliable than CVS. The MTT test of Selol and 2-oxoheptyl ITC, which affected the ROS level and MTT reduction rate, gave false negative (2-oxoheptyl ITC) or false positive (Selol) results. As a consequence, the MTT assay identified an antagonistic interaction between Selol and ITC, while the metabolism-independent CVS test identified an additive or synergistic interaction. In this paper, we show for the first time that the test assay may change the interpretation of the compound interaction. Therefore, the test method should be chosen with caution, considering the mechanism of action of the compound.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0155772

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

See all 190

Metadata

Authors
Śliwka, L., Wiktorska, K., Suchocki, P., Milczarek, M., Mielczarek, S., Lubelska, K., Cierpiał, T., Łyżwa, P., Kiełbasiński, P., Jaromin, A., Flis, A., & Chilmonczyk, Z.
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2016-05-19
Volume
11
Issue
5
Pages
e0155772
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2398202111
Cited by
190
References
3
FWCI
34.61
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 Comparison of MTT and CVS Assays for the Assessment of Anticancer Agent Interactions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0155772
The paper
Śliwka, L., Wiktorska, K., Suchocki, P., Milczarek, M., Mielczarek, S., Lubelska, K., Cierpiał, T., Łyżwa, P., Kiełbasiński, P., Jaromin, A., Flis, A., & Chilmonczyk, Z. (2016). The Comparison of MTT and CVS Assays for the Assessment of Anticancer Agent Interactions. PLOS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0155772

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.