English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Area-based and intensity-based 3D cell viability measurement methods are compared in high-throughput screening in order to analyze their effects on the assay results (doubling time and IC50) and their repeatability. Many other 3D cell-based high-throughput screening platforms had been previously introduced, but these had not clearly addressed the effects of the two methods on the assay results and assay repeatability. In this study, the optimal way to analyze 3D cultured cells is achieved by comparing day-to-day data of doubling times and IC50 values obtained from the two methods. In experiments, the U251 cell line is grown in chips. The doubling time, based on the area of the 3D cells, was 27.8 ± 1.8 h (standard deviation: 6.6%) and 27.8 ± 3.8 h (standard deviation: 13.7%) based on the intensity of the 3D cells. The doubling time calculated by area shows a smaller standard deviation than one calculated by intensity. IC50 values calculated by both methods are very similar. The standard deviations of IC50 values for the two methods were within ± 3-fold. The IC50 variations of the 12 compounds were similar regardless of the viability measurement methods and were highly related to the shape of the dose-response curves.

Automatic 3D Cell Analysis in High-Throughput Microarray Using Micropillar and Microwell Chips