.
 | 网站首页 | 中心简介 | 科研动态 | 技术平台 | 学习园地 | 最新摘要 | 人工皮肤 | 政策法规 | 学术交流 | 内部网 | 人才招聘 | 网络教学 | 
您现在的位置: 组织工程与再生医学网 >> 最新摘要 >> 实验技术 >> 正文

  没有公告

专 题 报 道
 组织工程
 干细胞研究
最 新 热 门
最 新 推 荐
相 关 文 章
没有相关文摘
Accuracy of Three Techniques to Determine Cell Viability in 3D Tissues or Scaffolds 使用三种技术检测细胞在3D组织或支架中的活性的准确性         
Accuracy of Three Techniques to Determine Cell Viability in 3D Tissues or Scaffolds 使用三种技术检测细胞在3D组织或支架中的活性的准确性
作者:Benjamin… 文章来源:TISSUE ENGINEERING: Part C  Volume 14, Number 00 点击数: 更新时间:2008-11-24 17:51:24

        Several different assays are commonly used to evaluate survival of cells inside tissues or three-dimensional carriers, but their accuracy and reliability have not been evaluated. Here, we compare three methods for cell viability (CV) determination: (i) lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) staining on cryosections, (ii) calcein AM/ethidium homodimer-1 (CaAM=EthH) staining, and (iii) carrier digestion and trypan blue (TB) assay. Living and dead cell populations were generated from bovine chondrocytes and combined to produce approximately 0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% CV mixtures. CV ratios were measured with TB assay (MIX) before seeding cells into fibrin carriers. CV was then determined using the three methods (n=5method). Custom-written macros were used to process LDH- and CaAM=EthH-stained images, and hand counting with hemocytometer was used for the TB method. Absolute error and intraclass correlation (ICC) were used for accuracy and reliability evaluation. All methods estimated CV values close to MIX values. TB method was the most accurate (ICC=0.99) followed by CaAM=EthH (ICC=0.98) and LDH (ICC=0.97). As for absolute quantification of living and dead cells, TB and LDH methods performed well (ICC=0.75–0.96), whereas CaAM=EthH largely overestimated cell numbers (living, ICC=0.30; dead, ICC=0.30). Although TB was the most accurate, LDH and CaAM=EthH provide valuable information on cell shape and spatial distribution of cells in tissue or a scaffold.  

   

    有一些检测方式可以被用于评价细胞在组织或3D载体中的生存情况,但是他们的准确性和可靠性并没有经过系统的评估。这里,我们要比较三种细胞活力(CV)的检测方法: (i) 冰冻切片的乳酸脱氢酶(LDH)染色,(ii) 钙黄绿素—AM/乙锭同型二聚体双荧光染色, (iii)载体消化和台盼蓝(TB)检测。将来自牛软骨细胞的活细胞和死细胞以细胞活力分别大约为0% 25%, 50% 75%、和 100%进行混合。细胞经台盼蓝检测后,以一定的活力率接种于纤维蛋白胶支架上。然后用以上三种方法检测细胞活力率(n=5/每种方法)。Custom-written macros 被用于处理乳酸脱氢酶染色和钙黄绿素—AM/乙锭同型二聚体双荧光染色结果的图片,血细胞计数器被用于台盼蓝检测,可靠性评价中使用了绝对误差和组内相关分析。所有的检测结果都显示接近于细胞混合的值。台盼蓝检测最准确,接下来是钙黄绿素—AM/乙锭同型二聚体双荧光染色和乳酸脱氢酶染色。至于活细胞和死细胞的绝对定量化,台盼蓝检测和乳酸脱氢酶染色表现很好,而钙黄绿素—AM/乙锭同型二聚体双荧光染色过高的评价了细胞数量。虽然台盼蓝检测最精确,但另两种方法也能在细胞形态和细胞空间分布上提供有价值的信息。
文摘录入:flyingfly    责任编辑:luwei 
  • 上一篇文摘:

  • 下一篇文摘: 没有了
  • 【字体: 】【发表评论】【加入收藏】【告诉好友】【打印此文】【关闭窗口
      网友评论:(只显示最新10条。评论内容只代表网友观点,与本站立场无关!)