4.5 Article

Comparative analysis of two colorimetric assays in dental pulp cell density

期刊

INTERNATIONAL ENDODONTIC JOURNAL
卷 44, 期 1, 页码 59-64

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2010.01796.x

关键词

endodontics; methods; stem cells; tissue engineering

资金

  1. CAPES [484329/2007-3 - FFD]
  2. CNPq [484329/2007-3 - FFD]
  3. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DENTAL & CRANIOFACIAL RESEARCH [R01DE021410] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

P>Aim To compare and contrast two colorimetric assays used for the measurement of proliferation using two dental pulp cell types: dental pulp stem cells (DPSC) and human dental pulp fibroblasts (HDPF). Methodology Dental pulp stem cells or HDPF were seeded at 0.25 x 104 cells per well in 96-well plates. Cell proliferation was evaluated after 24-72 h. At the end of the experimental period, the sulforhodamine B (SRB) assay or a water-soluble tetrazolium salt (WST-1) assay was performed. Optical densities were determined in a microplate reader (Genius; TECAN). Data were analysed by Student's t-test (comparison between cell types) and one-way anova followed by Tukey test (time-point intervals). Pearson' correlation tests were performed to compare the two assays for each cell line. Results Both assays showed that DPSC had higher proliferation rates than HDPF. A positive significant correlation between the two colorimetric assays tested for both cell types DPSC (Pearson's correlation coefficient = 0.847; P < 0.05) and HDPF (Pearson's correlation coefficient = 0.775; P < 0.05). Conclusion Both tests demonstrated similar trends of cell proliferation, and thus are both appropriate for the evaluation of DPSC and HDPF. The choice of assay is therefore one of the practical applications. SRB stained plates can be dried and stored so may have utility in laboratories where data may require review or when access to analytical equipment is limited. WST-1 assays have the benefit of both ease and speed and may have utility in laboratories requiring either high throughput or rapid analyses.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据