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 accessAbstract
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.
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
Chou, T.-C., & Talalay, P. (1984) · Advances in Enzyme Regulation · doi:10.1016/0065-2571(84)90007-4 · Cited by 7,178
Tetrazolium dyes as tools in cell biology: new insights into their cellular reduction
Berridge, M. V., Herst, P. M., & Tan, A. S. (2005) · Biotechnology Annual Review · doi:10.1016/s1387-2656(05)11004-7 · Cited by 2,222
Microfluidic 3D models of cancer
Sung, K. E., & Beebe, D. J. (2014) · Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.addr.2014.07.002 · Cited by 190
Cited by
In Vitro Cytotoxicity and Cell Viability Assays: Principles, Advantages, and Disadvantages
Aslantürk, Ö. S. (2018) · Genotoxicity - A Predictable Risk to Our Actual World · doi:10.5772/intechopen.71923 · Cited by 408
Ghasemi, M., Liang, S., Luu, Q. M., & Kempson, I. (2023) · Methods in Molecular Biology · doi:10.1007/978-1-0716-3052-5_2 · Cited by 91
Handali, S., Moghimipour, E., Kouchak, M., Ramezani, Z., Amini, M., Angali, K. A., Saremy, S., Dorkoosh, F. A., & Rezaei, M. (2019) · Life Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.lfs.2019.04.030 · Cited by 71
Deriving Primary Cancer Cell Cultures for Personalized Therapy
Esparza-López, J., Martínez-Aguilar, J. F., & Ibarra-Sánchez, M. D. J. (2019) · Revista de Investigación Clínica · doi:10.24875/ric.19002832 · Cited by 20
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
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- 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.