2020
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0231634
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Mind your assays: Misleading cytotoxicity with the WST-1 assay in the presence of manganese

Abstract: The WST-1 assay is the most common test to assess the in vitro cytotoxicity of chemicals. Tetrazolium-based assays can, however, be affected by the interference of tested chemicals, including carbon nanotubes or Mg particles. Here, we report a new interference of Mn materials with the WST-1 assay. Endothelial cells exposed to Mn particles (Mn alone or Fe-Mn alloy from 50 to 1600 μg/ml) were severely damaged according to the WST-1 assay, but not the ATP content assay. Subsequent experiments revealed that Mn par… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
40
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 48 publications
(40 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
0
40
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In this case, a known amount of hydrophilic formazan crystal formed from WST-1 should be incubated with respective MWCNT-COOH concentrations to verify whether carbon nanotubes do not interfere with the signal, yielding a false-positive result. Recently, a similar experiment with WST-1 assay was carried out by Scarcello et al on manganese nanoparticles, with the conclusion that luminescence-based tests could be more appropriate for this type of analysis [ 45 ]. This further confirms that research on the interference of nanomaterials with luminescence-based assays is needed.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this case, a known amount of hydrophilic formazan crystal formed from WST-1 should be incubated with respective MWCNT-COOH concentrations to verify whether carbon nanotubes do not interfere with the signal, yielding a false-positive result. Recently, a similar experiment with WST-1 assay was carried out by Scarcello et al on manganese nanoparticles, with the conclusion that luminescence-based tests could be more appropriate for this type of analysis [ 45 ]. This further confirms that research on the interference of nanomaterials with luminescence-based assays is needed.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although CS is characterized as a biocompatible material [ 15 ], cell behavior varies depending on the material characteristics and the testing system [ 43 ]. Thus, various in vitro testing methods are useful to verify if the material is potentially toxic in different ways [ 45 , 46 ]. CS particles induced the adverse cell response at high concentrations, however, this effect could be expected efficiently compensated in vivo.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These reagents include 2,3-Bis-(2-Methoxy-4-Nitro-5-Sulfophenyl)-2 H -Tetrazolium-5-Carboxanilide (XTT) and 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-5-(3-carboxymethoxyphenyl)-2-(4-sulfophenyl)-2H-tetrazolium (MTS). One advantage of these assays is that no second reagent is required for solubilization of the formazide, allowing readings to be taken periodically [ 87 , 88 ]. Similarly, negatively charged 2-(4-iodophenyl)-3-(4-nitrophenyl)-5-(2,4-disulfophenyl)-2H-tetrazolium) (WST-1) is reduced to another variation of water-soluble formazide.…”
Section: Examination Of Microencapsulated Islets and Cell Linesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Similarly, negatively charged 2-(4-iodophenyl)-3-(4-nitrophenyl)-5-(2,4-disulfophenyl)-2H-tetrazolium) (WST-1) is reduced to another variation of water-soluble formazide. However, WST-1 is unable to penetrate the cell, so the reduction reaction occurs outside, making it unsuitable for widespread use in microencapsulated cells [ 88 , 89 ].…”
Section: Examination Of Microencapsulated Islets and Cell Linesmentioning
confidence: 99%