摘要
目的 :比较自创的三维三步MTT法 (3D3S MTT法 )与MTT法及芬丹明B法 (SRB法 )在肿瘤药敏试验中的价值。方法 :选用Hep G2、T 2 4和SKOV3三种细胞系和丝列霉素及阿霉素两种抗癌药 ,观察暴露于两种药物 3d后再培养不同时间 ,用上述三种方法测定的药敏结果。MTT法与SRB法计算肿瘤生长抑制率 (%TGI)的公式均是 :%TGI =[1 At Ac]× 1 0 0 % ;根据自建的表达MTT代谢的数学模型 ,3D3S MTT法计算 %TGI的公式是 :%TGI =1 { [lnAmax ln(Amax At) ] [lnAmax ln(Amax Ac) ] } 1 b × 1 0 0 %。结果 :三种方法测定的药物剂量 反应曲线均呈S型。MTT法测定的 %TGI要比SRB法和 3D3S MTT法测定的结果低 ,而MTT法测定的IC50 平均为SRB法和 3D3S MTT法测定结果的 3～ 5倍。而 3D3S MTT法测定的 %TGI及IC50 与SRB法测定的结果相近似。结论 :3D3S MTT法克服了MTT法测定肿瘤药敏所存在的 3～ 5倍的低估问题 ,与SRB法相比结果可靠 。
Objective:To comparethe value of self establishedthree dimensional and three step MTT assay (3D3S MTT assay), MTT assay and Sulforhodamine B (SRB) assay for tumor chemosensitivity testing Methods:Hep G2, T 24 and SKOV3 cell lineswereexposed to Adriamycin and Mitomycin C for 3 days with different further culture durationand then carried out the above three methods For MTT assay and SRB assay the equation to calculate the percentage of tumour growth inhibition (%TGI) is: %TGI=[1 A t /A c ]×100% According to the self establishedmathematical model, the equation for 3D3S MTT assay is: %TGI=1 {\[lnA max ln(A max A t )\]/\[lnA max ln(A max A c )\]} 1/b ×100% Results: S shaped drug response curves were showed in all the above three methods Comparison of the results of %TGIand IC 50 show that %TGIpredicted by MTT assay is lower than that by SRB assay or 3D3S MTT assay, and IC 50 predicted by MTT assay is in average 3 to 5foldsof that by SRB assay or 3D3S MTT assay %TGIand IC 50 predicted by 3D3S MTT assay is approximately the same value as predicted by SRB assay Conclusion:3D3S MTT assay is applicable for in vitro tumor chemosensitivity testing, which is a successful solution to the 3 to 5 foldsunderestimation of chemosensitivity of MTT assay compared with SRB assay
出处
《军医进修学院学报》
CAS
2002年第3期170-172,共3页
Academic Journal of Pla Postgraduate Medical School
基金
国家自然科学基金资助项目 ( 30 0 0 0 16 4)
