Advertisement

Cytotechnology

, Volume 32, Issue 1, pp 63–75 | Cite as

Estimating the number of viable animal cells in multi-well cultures based on their lactate dehydrogenase activities

  • Gale Haslam
  • Diane Wyatt
  • Paul A. Kitos
Article

Abstract

A method is described for estimating the numbers ofanimal cells in multi-well culture by simultaneouslymeasuring the lactate dehydrogenase activity of thetotal culture and the medium. The difference betweenthe two reflects the dehydrogenase content of thecells and correlates with cell number. This LDH/INTmethod was tested using several lines of normal andtransformed suspension and adherent cells. Thelactate dehydrogenase activities of duplicate cultureswere determined colourimetrically using reactioncocktails containing lactate, NAD+, diaphorase,and p-iodonitrotetrazolium violet, with and withoutTriton X-100. The difference in absorbance at 490 nm(ΔA490 = A490, test – A490, control) was used to calculate the lactatedehydrogenase activity of the total culture (+ Triton)and the medium (– Triton). The cellular lactatedehydrogenase activity (difference between totaland medium dehydrogenaseactivities) was proportional to viable cell number. The effects on cell growth of four metabolicinhibitors, sodium azide, actinomycin D,cycloheximide, and taxol, were determined using theLDH/INT assay and direct cell counting. The inhibitorconcentrations that caused decreases in the LDHactivity and cell number by 50% were similar. TheLDH/INT assay is quick and sensitive, works equallywell for adherent and suspension cells, and providesinformation about LDH activities of both the mediumand cells. It is particularly useful for screeningpotential cell-growth inhibitors.

indirect cell count lactate dehydrogenase LDH tetrazolium reduction toxicity assay 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Asher M (1973) Hemocytometer counting, In: Kruse PF and Patterson MK (eds) Tissue Culture. Methods and Applications. Academic Press, New York, pp. 395-397.Google Scholar
  2. Babich H and Borenfreund E (1987) Structure-activity relationship (SAR) models established in vitro with the neutral red cytotoxicity assay. Toxicology in Vitro 1: 3-9.Google Scholar
  3. Babich H and Borenfreund E (1990) Application of neutral red assay to in vitro toxicology. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 18: 129-144.Google Scholar
  4. Babich H and Borenfreund E (1992) ‘Neutral red assay for toxicology in vitro’, In: Watson RR (Ed) In Vitro Methods in Toxicology (Chapt. 17) CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 237-251.Google Scholar
  5. Bour JM, Maugras M, Capiaumont J, Dousset B, Straczek J, Gelot MA and Nabet P (1989) Marquers biochimiques de la prolifération et de la mort des hybridomes en culture. BioSciences 7: 35-40.Google Scholar
  6. Carmichael J, DeGraff WG, Gazdar AF, Minna JD and Mitcoll JB (1987) Evaluation of a tetrazolium-based semiautomatic colorimetric test: assessment of chemosensitivity testing. Cancer Res 47: 936-942.Google Scholar
  7. Cook JR and Mitchell JB (1989) Viability measurements in mammalian cell systems. Anal Biochem 179: 1-7.Google Scholar
  8. Decker T and Lohmann-Matthes M-L (1988) A quick and simple method for quantitation of lactate dehydrogenase release in measurements of cellular cytotoxicity and tumor necrosis factor (TNF) activity. J Immunol Methods 15: 61-69.Google Scholar
  9. Denizot F and Lang R (1986) Modifications of the tetrazolium dye procedure giving improved sensitivity and reliability. J Immunol Methods 89: 271-277.Google Scholar
  10. Doyle A and Griffiths JB (Eds) (1998) ‘Cell and tissue culture. Laboratory procedures in biotechnology’, John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 55-81.Google Scholar
  11. Falkenhain A, Lorenz Th, Behrendt U and Lehmann J (1998) ‘Dead cell estimation-A comparison of different methods’, In Merten O-W, Perrin P and Griffiths JB (Eds) New developments and new applications in animal cell technology, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, pp. 333-336.Google Scholar
  12. Familletti PC and Wardwell-Swanson JA (1988) A novel approach to bioassays. Biotechnology 6: 1169-1172.Google Scholar
  13. Freshney RI and Morgan D (1978) Radioisotopic quantitation in microtitration plates by an autofluorographic method. Cell Biol Int Rep 2: 375-380.Google Scholar
  14. Freshney RI (1987) Culture of Animal Cells-A Manual of Basic Technique. 2nd ed, Alan R. Liss, Inc., New York, p. 229.Google Scholar
  15. Friedman HM and Glaubiger DL (1982) Assessment of in vitro drug sensitivity of human tumor cells using [3H]thymidine incorporation in a modified human tumor stem cell. Cancer Res 42: 4683-4689.Google Scholar
  16. Goergen JL, Marc A and Engasser JM (1993) Determination of cell lysis and death kinetics in continuous hybridoma cultures from the measurement of lactate dehydrogenase release. Cytotechnology 11: 189-195.Google Scholar
  17. Hakala MT and Rustrum YM (1979) In: DeVita VT and Busch H (eds) Methods in Cancer Research: Cancer Drug Development. Part A, Academic Press, New York, p. 47.Google Scholar
  18. Harris M (1973) ‘Electronic enumeration and sizing of cells. B. Tissue culture cells’, In: Kruse PF and Patterson MK (eds) Tissue Culture, Methods and Applications, Academic Press, New York, pp. 400-405.Google Scholar
  19. Holbrook JJ, Liljas R, Steindel SJ and Rossman MG (1975) Lactate dehydrogenase, In: Boyer PD (ed) The Enzymes. Vol. XI, part A, 3rd ed, Academic Press, New York, pp. 191-292.Google Scholar
  20. Ihrig T, Tsao M, Hilton M, Jacobson F and Sliwkowski MB (1994) Cell culture raw materials screening by calcein-AM fluorescence using a 96 well plate format, In: Spier RE, Griffiths JB and Berthold W (eds) Animal Cell Technology: Products of Today, Prospects for Tomorrow. Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd., Oxford, UK, pp. 110-114.Google Scholar
  21. Kurokawa H, Park YS, Lijima S and Kobayashi T (1994) Growth characteristics in fed-batch culture of hybridoma cells with control of glucose and glutamine concentrations. Biotechnol Bioeng 44: 95-103.Google Scholar
  22. Korzeniewski C and Callewaert DM (1983) An enzyme release assay for natural cytotoxicity. J Immunol Methods 64: 313-320.Google Scholar
  23. Loontiens FG, McLaughlin LW, Diekmann S and Clegg RM (1991) Binding of Hoechst 33528 and 4′,6-diaminophenylindole to self-complementary decadeoxynucleotides with modified exocyclic base substituents. Biochemistry 30: 182-189.Google Scholar
  24. Marc A, Wagner A, Martial A, Goergen JL, Engasser JM, Geaugey V and Pinton H (1991) Potential and pitfalls of using LDH release for the evaluation of animal cell death kinetics, In: Spier RE et al. (eds) Production of Biologicals from Animal Cells in Culture, Oxford: Butterworth, UK, pp. 569-575.Google Scholar
  25. Morris C, Griffiths JB, Warburton S, West CML, Al-Rubeai M, Clarke JB, Simione F and Doyle A (1997) Core Techniques, In: Doyle A and Griffiths JB (eds) Mammalian Cell Culture: Essential Techniques, John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 47-62.Google Scholar
  26. Merten O-W, Keller H, Cabanie L, van Kan Martin C and Moeurs D (1992) Release of cellular enzymes for evaluating the dead cell number in bioreactor cultures, In: Spier RE, Griffiths JB and McDonald C (eds) Animal Cell Technology: Developments, Processes and products. Oxford: Butterworth, London, pp. 319-324.Google Scholar
  27. Mossman T (1983) Rapid colorimetric assay for cellular growth and survival: application to proliferation and cytotoxicity assays. J Immunol Methods 65: 55-63.Google Scholar
  28. Oyama VI and Eagle H (1956) Measurement of cell growth in tissue culture with a phenol reagent (Folin-Ciocalteau). Proc Soc Exp Biol Med 91: 305-307.Google Scholar
  29. Patterson MK (1979) Measurement of growth and viability in culture, In: Jacoby WB and Pastan IH (eds) Methods in Enzymology, Cell Culture. Vol. 58, Academic Press, New York, pp. 141-152.Google Scholar
  30. Pelletier F, Fonteix C, Lourenço da Silva A, Goergen JL, Marc A and Engasser JM (1994) Software sensors for the monitoring of high-density hybridoma perfusion cultures, In: Spier RE, Griffiths JB and Berthold W (eds) Animal Cell Technology: Products of Today, Prospects for Tomorrow. Oxford: Butterworth, London, UK, pp. 379-382.Google Scholar
  31. Phillips HJ (1973) Dye exclusion tests for cell viability, In: Kruse PF and Patterson MK (eds) Tissue Culture: Methods and Applications. Academic Press, New York, pp. 406-408.Google Scholar
  32. Racher AJ, Looby D and Griffiths JB (1990) Use of LDH release to assess changes in culture viability. Cytotechnology 3: 301-307.Google Scholar
  33. Roper PR and Drewinko B (1976) Comparison of in vitro methods to determine drug-induced cell lethality. Cancer Res 36: 2182-2188.Google Scholar
  34. Skehan P, Storeng R, Scudiero D, Monks A, McMahon J, Vistica D, Warren JT, Bokesch H, Kenney S and Boyd MR (1990) New colorimetric cytotoxicity assay for anticancer-drug screening. J Natl Cancer Instit 82: 1107-1112.Google Scholar
  35. Szekeres J, Pacsa AS and Pejtsik B (1981) Measurement of lymphocyte cytotoxicity by assessing endogenous alkaline phosphatase activity of the target cells. J Immunol Methods 40: 151-154.Google Scholar
  36. Wagner A, Marc A and Engasser J-M (1992) The use of lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) release kinetics for the evaluation of death and growth of mammalian cells in perfusion reactors. Biotechnol Bioeng 39: 320-326.Google Scholar
  37. Wilson AP (1986) Cytotoxicity and viability assays, In: Freshney RI (ed) Animal Cell Culture, a Practical Approach. IRL Press, Washington, DC, pp. 183-216.Google Scholar
  38. Winkelmeyer P, Glauner B and Lindl T (1993) Quantification of cytotoxicity by cell volume and cell proliferation. Atla 21: 269-280.Google Scholar
  39. Wroblewski F and LaDue JS (1955) Lactate dehydrogenase activity in blood. Proc Soc Exptl Biol Med 90: 210-213.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiochemistryThe University of KansasLawrenceU.S.A.
  2. 2.Department of BiochemistryThe University of KansasLawrenceU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations