ArticleCell death discovery2024
Improving the power of drug toxicity measurements by quantitative nuclei imaging.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Glial Cell Niche Induces Astrocytic Differentiation of NSCs via the BMP4-Smad1/5/8 Signaling Pathway.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Piperazine-Substituted Pyranopyridines Exhibit Antiproliferative Activity and Act as Inhibitors of HBV Virion Production.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
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
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.