| Title |
Determination of cell survival after irradiation via clonogenic assay versus multiple MTT Assay - A comparative study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Radiation Oncology, January 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1748-717x-7-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Karl Buch, Tanja Peters, Thomas Nawroth, Markus Sänger, Heinz Schmidberger, Peter Langguth |
| Abstract |
For studying proliferation and determination of survival of cancer cells after irradiation, the multiple MTT assay, based on the reduction of a yellow water soluble tetrazolium salt to a purple water insoluble formazan dye by living cells was modified from a single-point towards a proliferation assay. This assay can be performed with a large number of samples in short time using multi-well-plates, assays can be performed semi-automatically with a microplate reader. Survival, the calculated parameter in this assay, is determined mathematically. Exponential growth in both control and irradiated groups was proven as the underlying basis of the applicability of the multiple MTT assay. The equivalence to a clonogenic survival assay with its disadvantages such as time consumption was proven in two setups including plating of cells before and after irradiation. Three cell lines (A 549, LN 229 and F 98) were included in the experiment to study its principal and general applicability. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 371 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Portugal | 3 | <1% |
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| China | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 358 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 79 | 21% |
| Student > Bachelor | 63 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 62 | 17% |
| Researcher | 32 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 28 | 8% |
| Other | 42 | 11% |
| Unknown | 65 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 86 | 23% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 67 | 18% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 52 | 14% |
| Chemistry | 23 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 20 | 5% |
| Other | 47 | 13% |
| Unknown | 76 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 December 2014.
All research outputs
#15,241,259
of 22,661,413 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#1,036
of 2,041 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,198
of 244,202 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#9
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,661,413 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,041 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 244,202 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.