A Comparison of Thiazolyl blue (MTT) versus Sulforhodamine B (SRB) Assay in Assessment of Antiproliferative Effect of Bromelain on 4T1, AGS, and PC3 Cancer Cell Lines

Document Type : Original Article (s)

Authors

1 Researcher, Clinical Biochemistry Research Center, Basic Health Sciences Institute, Shahrekord University of Medical Sciences, Shahrekord, Iran

2 Assistant Professor, Clinical Biochemistry Research Center, Basic Health Sciences Institute AND Department of Medical Physics and Radiology, School of Allied Medical Sciences, Shahrekord University of Medical Sciences, Shahrekord, Iran

3 Professor, Department of Medical Physics, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

4 Professor, Clinical Biochemistry Research Center, Basic Health Sciences Institute, Shahrekord University of Medical Sciences, Shahrekord, Iran

5 MSc Student, Student Research Committee, Shahrekord University of Medical Sciences, Shahrekord, Iran

Abstract

Background: All natural anticancer agents are cytotoxic basically and act mainly by the inhibition cell proliferation; but they have different mechanisms. Two assays, thiazolyl blue [3- (4, 5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl) -2, 5-diphenyl-terazoliumbromide or MTT] and sulforhodamine B (SRB), are used to assess cell growth. This study aimed to compare measurements between MTT and SRB on the cancer cell lines.Methods: Different concentrations of the bromelain were added to cultured cells including mouse breast cancer (4T1), human gastric carcinoma (AGS), and human prostate carcinoma (PC3) cell lines and incubated at 24 and 48 hours. The growth and proliferation rates of the studied cells were investigated using both MTT and SRB assays after treatment with bromelain. The differences between cells were determined using Kruskal-Wallis and Dunns tests.Findings: Bromelain significantly decreased growth and proliferation rate of 4T1, AGS and PC3 cancer cells, in a concentration-dependent manner at different times, in both MTT and SRB assays.Conclusion: Findings showed that both MTT and SRB assays gained similar data regardless of the cell types.

Keywords

References

  1. Houghton P, Fang R, Techatanawat I, Steventon G, Hylands PJ, Lee CC. The sulphorhodamine (SRB) assay and other approaches to testing plant extracts and derived compounds for activities related to reputed anticancer activity. Methods 2007; 42(4): 377-87.
  2. Hauner K, Maisch P, Retz M. Side effects of chemotherapy. Urologe A 2017; 56(4): 472-9. [In German].
  3. Agarwal S, Chaudhary B, Bist R. Bacoside A and bromelain relieve dichlorvos induced changes in oxidative responses in mice serum. Chem Biol Interact 2016; 254: 173-8.
  4. Ramli AN, Aznan TN, Illias RM. Bromelain: From production to commercialisation. J Sci Food Agric 2017; 97(5): 1386-95.
  5. Pavan R, Jain S, Shraddha, Kumar A. Properties and therapeutic application of bromelain: A review. Biotechnol Res Int 2012; 2012: 976203.
  6. Chobotova K, Vernallis AB, Majid FA. Bromelain's activity and potential as an anti-cancer agent: Current evidence and perspectives. Cancer Lett 2010; 290(2): 148-56.
  7. Raeisi E, Shahbazi-Gahrouei D, Heidarian E. Pineapple extract as an efficient anticancer agent in treating human cancer cells. Front Cancers 2016; 1(1): e02.
  8. Romano B, Fasolino I, Pagano E, Capasso R, Pace S, De Rosa G, et al. The chemopreventive action of bromelain, from pineapple stem (Ananas comosus L.), on colon carcinogenesis is related to antiproliferative and proapoptotic effects. Mol Nutr Food Res 2014; 58(3): 457-65.
  9. Raeisi F, Raeisi E, Shahbazi-Gahrouei D, Heidarian E, Amiri M, Gholami M. cytotoxicity effect of pineapple extract on breast cancer cells (4T1). J Isfahan Med Sch 2016; 34(394): 946-51. [In Persian].
  10. Voigt W. Sulforhodamine B assay and chemosensitivity. Methods Mol Med 2005; 110: 39-48.
  11. Scudiero DA, Shoemaker RH, Paull KD, Monks A, Tierney S, Nofziger TH, et al. Evaluation of a soluble tetrazolium/formazan assay for cell growth and drug sensitivity in culture using human and other tumor cell lines. Cancer Res 1988; 48(17): 4827-33.
  12. Banasiak D, Barnetson AR, Odell RA, Mameghan H, Russell PJ. Comparison between the clonogenic, MTT, and SRB assays for determining radiosensitivity in a panel of human bladder cancer cell lines and a ureteral cell line. Radiat Oncol Investig 1999; 7(2): 77-85.
  13. van Tonder A, Joubert AM, Cromarty AD. Limitations of the 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyl-2H-tetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay when compared to three commonly used cell enumeration assays. BMC Res Notes 2015; 8: 47.
  14. Vichai V, Kirtikara K. Sulforhodamine B colorimetric assay for cytotoxicity screening. Nat Protoc 2006; 1(3): 1112-6.
  15. Haselsberger K, Peterson DC, Thomas DG, Darling JL. Assay of anticancer drugs in tissue culture: Comparison of a tetrazolium-based assay and a protein binding dye assay in short-term cultures derived from human malignant glioma. Anticancer Drugs 1996; 7(3): 331-8.
  16. Wu FY, Liao WC, Chang HM. Comparison of antitumor activity of vitamins K1, K2 and K3 on human tumor cells by two (MTT and SRB) cell viability assays. Life Sci 1993; 52(22): 1797-804.
  17. Griffon G, Merlin JL, Marchal C. Comparison of sulforhodamine B, tetrazolium and clonogenic assays for in vitro radiosensitivity testing in human ovarian cell lines. Anticancer Drugs 1995; 6(1): 115-23.
  18. Perez RP, Godwin AK, Handel LM, Hamilton TC. A comparison of clonogenic, microtetrazolium and sulforhodamine B assays for determination of cisplatin cytotoxicity in human ovarian carcinoma cell lines. Eur J Cancer 1993; 29A(3): 395-9.
Journal of Isfahan Medical School
Volume 35, Issue 443 - Serial Number 443
July and August 2017
Pages 1056-1061

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 23 June 2017
  • Revise Date: 25 May 2024
  • Accept Date: 06 April 2022

Share

How to cite

Statistics