Śliwka Lidia, Wiktorska Katarzyna, Suchocki Piotr, Milczarek Małgorzata, Mielczarek Szymon, Lubelska Katarzyna, Cierpiał Tomasz, Łyżwa Piotr, Kiełbasiński Piotr, Jaromin Anna, Flis Anna, Chilmonczyk Zdzisław
Department of Cell Biology, National Medicines Institute, Warszawa, Poland.
Department of Bioanalysis and Analysis of Drugs, Medical University of Warsaw, Warszawa, Poland.
PLoS One. 2016 May 19;11(5):e0155772. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0155772. eCollection 2016.
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.
多种体外试验被广泛应用于评估新化合物的抗癌活性,包括它们与其他药物的组合及相互作用。MTT(3-(4,5-二甲基噻唑-2-基)-2,5-二苯基四氮唑溴盐)试验是评估抗癌药物疗效和相互作用最常用的试验之一。然而,它会受到改变细胞代谢和反应条件的化合物的显著影响。因此,有时会使用多种试验来筛选潜在的抗癌药物。然而,大多数药物相互作用仅通过这种单一方法进行评估。我们研究的目的是验证试验方法的选择是否会对确定相互作用类型产生影响,并找出差异的来源。我们比较了MTT试验和CVS(结晶紫染色)试验在两种具有相似抗癌活性的化合物(异硫氰酸酯(ITC)和硒醇)相互作用中的准确性。进行了共聚焦显微镜研究,以评估这些化合物对活性氧(ROS)水平、线粒体膜电位、死/活细胞比率和MTT四氮唑盐还原率的影响。MTT试验不如CVS可靠。影响ROS水平和MTT还原率的硒醇和2-氧代庚基ITC的MTT试验给出了假阴性(2-氧代庚基ITC)或假阳性(硒醇)结果。因此,MTT试验确定硒醇和ITC之间存在拮抗相互作用,而与代谢无关的CVS试验确定存在相加或协同相互作用。在本文中,我们首次表明试验方法可能会改变对化合物相互作用的解释。因此,应根据化合物的作用机制谨慎选择试验方法。