Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38637526›Full record

ArticleCell death discovery2024

Improving the power of drug toxicity measurements by quantitative nuclei imaging.

Alesya M Mikheeva, Mikhail A Bogomolov, Valentina A Gasca, Mikhail V Sementsov, Pavel V Spirin, Vladimir S Prassolov, Timofey D Lebedev

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cell death discovery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Alesya M MikheevaDepartment of Cancer Cell Biology, Engelhardt Institute of Molecular Biology, Russian Academy of Sciences, 32 Vavilova str., Moscow, 119991, Russia.
Mikhail A BogomolovDepartment of Cancer Cell Biology, Engelhardt Institute of Molecular Biology, Russian Academy of Sciences, 32 Vavilova str., Moscow, 119991, Russia.
Valentina A GascaDepartment of Cancer Cell Biology, Engelhardt Institute of Molecular Biology, Russian Academy of Sciences, 32 Vavilova str., Moscow, 119991, Russia.
Mikhail V SementsovDepartment of Cancer Cell Biology, Engelhardt Institute of Molecular Biology, Russian Academy of Sciences, 32 Vavilova str., Moscow, 119991, Russia.
Pavel V SpirinDepartment of Cancer Cell Biology, Engelhardt Institute of Molecular Biology, Russian Academy of Sciences, 32 Vavilova str., Moscow, 119991, Russia.
Vladimir S PrassolovDepartment of Cancer Cell Biology, Engelhardt Institute of Molecular Biology, Russian Academy of Sciences, 32 Vavilova str., Moscow, 119991, Russia.
Timofey D LebedevDepartment of Cancer Cell Biology, Engelhardt Institute of Molecular Biology, Russian Academy of Sciences, 32 Vavilova str., Moscow, 119991, Russia. lebedevtd@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5966-0914
Engelhardt Institute of Molecular Biology · RU

Funding

Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation (Minobrnauka) 075-15-2019-1660Russian Science Foundation (RSF) 22-14-00353Russian Science Foundation (RSF) 23-74-10103
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Imaging-based anticancer drug screens are becoming more prevalent due to development of automated fluorescent microscopes and imaging stations, as well as rapid advancements in image processing software. Automated cell imaging provides many benefits such as their ability to provide high-content data, modularity, dynamics recording and the fact that imaging is the most direct way to access cell viability and cell proliferation. However, currently most publicly available large-scale anticancer drugs screens, such as GDSC, CTRP and NCI-60, provide cell viability data measured by assays based on colorimetric or luminometric measurements of NADH or ATP levels. Although such datasets provide valuable data, it is unclear how well drug toxicity measurements can be integrated with imaging data. Here we explored the relations between drug toxicity data obtained by XTT assay, two quantitative nuclei imaging methods and trypan blue dye exclusion assay using a set of four cancer cell lines with different morphologies and 30 drugs with different mechanisms of action. We show that imaging-based approaches provide high accuracy and the differences between results obtained by different methods highly depend on drug mechanism of action. Selecting AUC metrics over IC50 or comparing data where significantly drugs reduced cell numbers noticeably improves consistency between methods. Using automated cell segmentation protocols we analyzed mitochondria activity in more than 11 thousand drug-treated cells and showed that XTT assay produces unreliable data for CDK4/6, Aurora A, VEGFR and PARP inhibitors due induced cell size growth and increase in individual mitochondria activity. We also explored several benefits of image-based analysis such as ability to monitor cell number dynamics, dissect changes in total and individual mitochondria activity from cell proliferation, and ability to identify chromatin remodeling drugs. Finally, we provide a web tool that allows comparing results obtained by different methods.

Identifiers

PMID38637526
PMCPMC11026393
OpenAlexW4394927676

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.