Assay of Cell Cycle Kinetics by Multivariate Flow Cytometry Using the Principle of Stathmokinesis

  • Zbigniew Darzynkiewicz
  • Frank Traganos
  • Marek Kimmel
Part of the Biological Methods book series (BM)


Many of the existing cytokinetic techniques are based on the use of radioisotope-labeled DNA precursors (see  Chapter 1 Chapter 3 of this volume). Although numerous data obtained by these techniques contributed greatly to our present knowledge of the cell cycle, there are certain disadvantages related to the use of isotopes in general that limit their wider application, especially in the clinic. The drawbacks of autoradiography, which requires long exposure times and cumbersome grain-count analysis, are well known. There are also problems with the quantitative aspect of the autoradiography; especially of tritium detection (e.g., see ref 51). The alternative of autoradiography, liquid scintillation spectroscopy, precludes analysis of individual cells and thus restricts studies on cell heterogeneity. The variability in pools of endogenous nucleotides and changes in the accessibility of the precursor in vivo or in vitro create additional problems when any quantitative data on the rate of DNA replication (progression through S-phase) must be obtained based on radioactivity measurements. The most important limitation, however, especially when tritium-labeled thymidine is used, is the radiobiological effect of the precursor.


Acridine Orange Cell Arrest Cell Progression Flow Cytometric Measurement Mitotic Inhibitor 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Aherne, W. A. and Camplejohn, R. S. On correcting the error due to metaphase degeneration in stathmokinetic studies. Exp. Cell Res., 74: 496–501, 1972.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aherne, W. A., Camplejohn, R. S., and Wright, N. A. An Introduction to Cell Population Kinetics. London: Edward Arnold, 1977.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alberghina, L., Merran, L., and Mortegani, E. Cell cycle variability: Modeling and Simulation. In: (M. Rottenberg, ed.), Biomathematics and Cell Kinetics. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1981.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barfod, I. J. and Barfod, N. M. Cell-production rates estimated by the use of vincristine sulphate and flow cytometry. I. An in vitro study using murine tumour cell lines. Cell Tissue Kinet., 13: 1–8, 1980.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barfod, I. H. and Barfod, N. M. Cell-production rates estimated by the use of vincristine sulphate and flow cytometry. II. Correlation between the cell-production rates of aging ascites tumours and the number of S phase tumour cells. Cell Tissue Kinet., 13: 9–19, 1980.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bauer, K. D. and Dethlefsen, L. A. Total cellular RNA content: Correlation between flow cytometry and ultraviolet spectroscopy. J. Histochem. Cytochem., 28: 493–498, 1980.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bauer, K. D., Keng, P. C., and Sutherland, R. M. Isolation of quiescent cells from multicellular tumor spheroids using centrifugal elutriation. Cancer Res., 42: 75–78, 1982.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bohmer, R. M. Flow cytometric cell-cycle analysis using the quenching of 33258 Hoechst fluorescence by bromodeoxyuridine incorporation. Cell Tissue Kinet., 12: 101–112, 1979.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Castor, L. N. A G1-rate model accounts for cell cycle kinetics attributed to “transition probability”. Nature, 287: 76–79, 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Clarke, R. M. A comparison of metaphase arresting agents and tritiated thymidine in measurements of the rate of entry into mitosis in the crypts of Lieberkuhn of the rat. Cell Tissue Kinet., 4: 263–272, 1971.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cleaver, J. E. Thymidine Metabolism and Cell Kinetics. Amsterdam: North Holland, 1967.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Coffino, P. and Gray, J. W. Regulation of S49 lymphoma cell growth by cyclic adenosine 3′:5′-monophosphate. Cancer Res., 38: 4285–4288, 1978.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    D’Anna, J. A., Tobey, P. A., and Gurley, L. R. Concentration-dependent effects of sodium butyrate in Chinese hamster cells: Cell cycle progression, inner-histone acetylation, histone H1 dephosphorylation and induction of an H1-like protein. Biochemistry, 19: 2656–2671, 1980.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Darzynkiewicz, Z. Molecular interactions and cellular changes during the cell cycle. Parmac. Therap., 21: 143–188, 1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Darzynkiewicz, Z. Metabolic and kinetic compartments of the cell cycle distinguished by multiparameter flow cytometry. In: (P. Skehan and S. Friedman, eds.), Growth, Cancer and the Cell Cycle. New Jersey: Humana Press, 1984.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Darzynkiewicz, Z., Andreeff, M., Traganos, F., Sharpless, T., and Melamed, M. R. Discrimination of cycling and non-cycling lymphocytes by BUdR-suppressed acridine orange fluorescence in a flow cytometric system. Exp. Cell Res., 115: 31–35, 1978.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Darzynkiewicz, Z., Crissman, H., Traganos, F., and Steinkamp, J. Cell heterogeneity during the cell cycle. J. Cell Physiol., 113: 465–474, 1982.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Darzynkiewicz, Z. and Traganos, F. RNA content and chromatin structure in cycling and noncycling cell populations studied by flow cytometry. In: (G. M. Padilla and K. S. McCarty, eds.), Genetic Expression in the Cell Cycle. New York: Academic Press, 1982.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Darzynkiewicz, Z., Traganos, F., Andreeff, M., Sharpless, T., and Melamed, M. R. Different sensitivity of chromatin to acid denaturation in quiescent and cycling cells as revealed by flow cytometry. J. Histochem. Cytochem., 27: 478–485, 1979.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Darzynkiewicz, Z., Traganos, F., and Melamed, M. R. New cell cycle compartments identified by multiparameter flow cytometry. Cytometry, 1: 98–108, 1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Darzynkiewicz, Z., Traganos, F., and Melamed, M. R. Distinction between 5-bromodeoxyuridine labelled and unlabelled mitotic cells by flow cytometry. Cytometry, 3: 345–348, 1983.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Darzynkiewicz, Z., Traganos, F., Sharpless, T., and Melamed, M. R. Cell cycle-related changes in nuclear chromatin of stimulated lymphocytes as measured by flow cytometry. Cancer Res., 37: 4635–4640, 1977.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Darzynkiewicz, Z., Traganos, F., Sharpless, T., and Melamed, M. R. Recognition of cells in mitosis by flow cytofluorometry. J. Histochem. Cytochem., 25: 875–880, 1977.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Darzynkiewicz, Z., Traganos, F., Staiano-Coico, L., Kapuscinski, J., and Melamed, M. R. Interactions of rhodamine 123 with living cells studied by flow cytometry. Cancer Res., 42: 799–806, 1982.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Darzynkiewicz, Z., Traganos, F., Xue, S. B., and Melamed, M. R. Effect of n-butyrate on cell cycle progression and in situ chromatin structure of L1210 cells. Exp. Cell Res., 136: 279–293, 1981.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Darzynkiewicz, Z., Traganos, F., Xue, S. B., Staiano-Coico, L., and Melamed, M. R. Rapid analysis of drug effects on the cell cycle. Cytometry, 1: 279–286, 1981.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Darzynkiewicz, Z., Williamson, B., Carswell, E. A., and Old, L. J. The cell cycle specific effects of tumor necrosis factor analysed by multiparamter flow cytometry. Cancer Res., 44: 83–90, 1984.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Dean, P. N., Dolbeare, F., Gratzner, H., Rice, G. C., and Gray, J. W. Cell-cycle analysis using a monoclonal antibody to BrdUrd. Cell Tissue Kinet., 17: 427–436, 1983.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Dolbeare, F., Gratzner, H., Pallavicini, M. G., and Gray, J. W. Flow cytometric measurements of total DNA content and incorporated bromodeoxyuridine. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 80: 5573–5577, 1983.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Dosik, G. M., Barlogie, B., White, A. R., Gohde, W., and Drewinko, B. A rapid automated stathmokinetic method for determination of in vitro cell cycle transit times. Cell Tissue Kinet., 14: 121–134, 1981.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Fitzgerald, P. H. and Brehaut, L. A. Depression of DNA synthesis and mitotic index by colchicine in cultured human lymphocytes. Exp. Cell Res., 59: 27–35, 1970.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Frei, E., Whang, J., Scoggins, R. B., Van Scott, E. J., Rail, D. P., and Ben, M. The stathmokinetic effect of vincristine. Cancer Res., 24: 1918–1928, 1964.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gratzner, H. G. and Leif, R. C. An immunofluorescence method for monitoring DNA synthesis by flow cytometry. Cytometry, 1: 385–389, 1981.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gray, J. W. Cell-cycle analysis of perturbed cell population. Computer simulation of sequential DNA distribution. Cell Tissue Kinet., 9: 499–510, 1976.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gray, J. W., Carver, J. H., George, Y. S., and Mendelsohn, M. L. Rapid cell cycle analysis by measurement of the radioactivity per cell in a narrow window in S phase (RCS). Cell Tissue Kinet., 10: 97–107, 1977.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hahn, G. M. State vector description of the proliferation of mammalian cells in tissue culture. I. Exponential growth. Biophys. J., 6: 275–286, 1966.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Iversen, O. H., Iversen, U., Ziegler, J. L., and Bluming, A. Z. Cell kinetics in Burkitt lymphoma. Eur. J. Cancer, 10: 155–163, 1974.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Jagers, P. Branching Processes With Biological Applications. New York: Wiley and Sons, 1975.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kimmel, M. General theory of cell cycle dynamics based on the branching processes in varying environment. In: (M. Rotenberg, ed.), Biomathematics and Cell Kinetics. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1981.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kimmel, M. and Traganos, F. Kinetics of drug induced G2 block in vitro. Mathematical analysis of stathmokinesis and continuous exposure. Cell Tissue Kinet., 18: 91–110, 1985.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kimmel, M., Traganos, F., and Darzynkiewicz, Z. Do all daughter cells enter the indeterminate (“A”) state of the cell cycle? Analysis of stathmokinetic experiments on L1210 cells. Cytometry, 4: 191–201, 1983.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Latt, S. A., George, Y. S., and Gray, J. W. Flow cytometric analysis of bromodeoxyuridine-substituted cells stained with 33258 Hoechst. J. Histochem. Cytochem., 25: 927–934, 1977.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Macdonald, P. D. M. Towards an exact analysis of stathmokinetic and continuous-labelling experiments. In: (M. Rottenberg, ed.), Biomathematics and Cell Kinetics. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1981.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Mitchison, J. M. The Biology of the Cell Cycle. Cambridge: The University Press, 1981.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Morris, W. T. In vivo studies on the optimum time for the action of colchicine on mouse lymphoid tissues. Exp. Cell Res., 48: 209–217, 1967.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Nedelman, J. and Rubinow, S.I. Investigation into the experimental kinetics support the two-state model of the cell cycle. Cell Biophys., 2: 207–231, 1980.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Pollack, A., Bagwell, C. B., and Irvin III, G. L. Radiation from tritiated thymidine perturbs the cell cycle progression of PHA stimulated lymphocytes. Science, 203: 1025–1026, 1979.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Pritchett, C. J., Senior, P. V., Sunter, J. P., Watson, A. J., Appleton, D. R., and Wilson, R. G. Human colorectal tumours in short-term organ culture. A stathmokinetic study. Cell Tissue Kinet., 15: 555–564, 1982.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Puck, T. T., Sanders, P., and Petersen, D. Life cycle analysis of mammalian cells. II. Cells from the Chinese hamster ovary grown in suspension culture. Biophys. J., 4: 441–455, 1964.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Puck, T. T. and Steffen, J. Life cycle analysis of mammalian cells. I. A method for localizing metabolic events within the life cycle and its application to the action of Colcemid and sublethal doses of X-irradiation. Biophys. J., 3: 379–397, 1963.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Rogers, A. W. Techniques of Autoradiography. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1973.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Scheiderman, M. H. Scheiderman, G. S., Rusk, C. H. A cell kinetic method for the mitotic selection of drug treated G2 cells. Cell Tissue Kinet., 16: 41–49, 1983.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Sharpless, T. K. and Schlesinger, F. H. Flow cytometric analysis of G1 exit kinetics in asynchronous L1210 cell cultures with the constant transition probability model. Cytometry, 3: 196–200, 1982.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Sharpless, T., Traganos, F., Darzynkiewicz, Z., and Melamed, M. R. Flow cytofluorimetry: Discrimination between single cells and cell aggregates by direct size measurements. Acta Cytol., 19: 577–581, 1975.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Smith, J. A. and Martin, L. Do cells cycle? Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 70: 1263–1267, 1973.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Smith, R. S., Thomas, D. B., and Riches, A. C. Cell production in tumour isografts measured using vincristine and colcemid. Cell Tissue Kinet., 7: 529–535, 1974.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Staiano-Coico, L., Darzynkiewicz, Z., Hefton, J. M., Dutkowski, R., Darlington, G. J., and Weksler, M. E. Increased sensitivity of lymphocytes from people over 65 to cell cycle arrest and chromosomal damage. Science, 219: 1335–1337, 1983.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Swartzendruber, D. G. A bromodeoxyuridine (BUdR)-mithromycin technique for detecting cycling and noncycling cells by flow microfluorometry. Exp. Cell Res., 109: 439–443, 1977.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Tannock, I. F. A comparison of the relative efficiencies of various metaphase arrest agents. Exp. Cell Res., 47: 345–356, 1967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Thames, H. D. and White, R. A. State-vector models of the cell cycle. I. Parametrization and fits to labelled mitoses data. J. Theoret. Biol., 67: 733–743, 1977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Tobey, R. A. Different drugs arrest cells at a number of distinct stages in G2. Nature, 254: 245–247, 1975.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Traganos, F., Staiano-Coico, L., Darzynkiewicz, Z., and Melamed, M. R. Effects of dihydro-5-azacytidine on cell survival and cell cycle progression of cultured mammalian cells. Cancer Res., 41: 780–789, 1981.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Traganos, F., Staiano-Coico, L., Darzynkiewicz, Z., and Melamed, M. R. Effects of aclacinomycin on cell survival and cell cycle progression of cultured mammalian cells. Cancer Res., 41: 2728–2737, 1981.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    White, R. A., Grdina, D. J., Meistrich, M. L., Meyn, R. A., and Johnson, T. S. Cell synchrony techniques. II. Analysis of cell progression data. Cell Tissue Kinet., 17: 237–245, 1984.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Wright, N. A. and Appleton, D. R. The metaphase arrest technique. A critical review. Cell Tissue Kinet., 13: 643–663, 1980.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Wright, N. A., Britton, D. C., Bone, G., and Appleton, D. R. A stath-mokinetic study of cell proliferation in human gastric carcinoma and gastric mucosa. Cell Tissue Kinet., 10: 429–437, 1977.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Humana Press Inc. 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zbigniew Darzynkiewicz
    • 1
  • Frank Traganos
    • 1
  • Marek Kimmel
    • 1
  1. 1.Walker LaboratorySloan-Kettering Institute of Cancer ResearchRye

Personalised recommendations