It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Tetrazolium reduction and resazurin assays are the mainstay of routine in vitro toxicity batteries. However, potentially erroneous characterization of cytotoxicity and cell proliferation can arise if verification of baseline interaction of test article with method employed is neglected. The current investigation aimed to demonstrate how interpretation of results from several standard cytotoxicity and proliferation assays vary in dependence on contributions from the pentose phosphate pathway (PPP). Non-tumorigenic Beas-2B cells were treated with graded concentrations of benzo[a]pyrene (B[a]P) for 24 and 48 h prior to cytotoxicity and proliferation assessment with commonly used MTT, MTS, WST1, and Alamar Blue assays. B[a]P caused enhanced metabolism of each dye assessed despite reductions in mitochondrial membrane potential and was reversed by 6-aminonicotinamide (6AN)—a glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase inhibitor. These results demonstrate differential sensitivity of standard cytotoxicity assessments on the PPP, thus (1) decoupling “mitochondrial activity” as an interpretation of cellular formazan and Alamar Blue metabolism, and (2) demonstrating the implicit requirement for investigators to sufficiently verify interaction of these methods in routine cytotoxicity and proliferation characterization. The nuances of method-specific extramitochondrial metabolism must be scrutinized to properly qualify specific endpoints employed, particularly under the circumstances of metabolic reprogramming.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, HELD/ACIB, Morgantown, USA (GRID:grid.416809.2) (ISNI:0000 0004 0423 0663); National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Morgantown, USA (GRID:grid.416809.2) (ISNI:0000 0004 0423 0663)
2 National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, HELD/ACIB, Morgantown, USA (GRID:grid.416809.2) (ISNI:0000 0004 0423 0663)
3 Harvard University, Department of Environmental Health, Boston, USA (GRID:grid.38142.3c) (ISNI:000000041936754X)
4 National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, HELD/ACIB, Morgantown, USA (GRID:grid.416809.2) (ISNI:0000 0004 0423 0663); West Virginia University, Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Morgantown, USA (GRID:grid.268154.c) (ISNI:0000 0001 2156 6140)
5 West Virginia University, Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Morgantown, USA (GRID:grid.268154.c) (ISNI:0000 0001 2156 6140)