Use of Doubling Number as an Arithmetic Measure of Plant Cell Growth and Metal-Induced Cell Growth Inhibition
Author:
METİN Mert1ORCID, KAWANO Tomonori1ORCID
Affiliation:
1. The University of Kitakyushu
Abstract
Cell growth inhibition is generally handled as a measure of toxicity. Shortly, more toxicity implies more growth inhibition. Then, the question arises; How to calculate & evaluate cell growth inhibition in a universal manner? Actually, the method for calculating growth inhibition is not considered to be a central issue, in general. There are various approaches (subtractive, divisionary, and logarithmic) for calculating cell growth. Among these approaches, two of them are highly easy and popular, subtraction-based and division-based calculations. However, these two methods for the calculation of cell growth do not strongly reflect the nature of cell growth. Alternatively, the use of a doubling number-based formulation can provide a better approach and performance in the evaluation of cell growth and cell growth inhibition unless the culture attains the confluent status. Here, we discussed different methods of growth calculation which we applied to the study of “growth inhibition of BY-2 cells under Cd exposure”.
Publisher
Gazi University Journal of Science
Subject
Multidisciplinary,General Engineering
Reference28 articles.
1. [1] Li, Q., Dai, W., Liu, J., Li, Y.-X. and Li, Y.-Y., “DRAP: a toolbox for drug response analysis and visualization tailored for preclinical drug testing on patient-derived xenograft models”, Journal of Translational Medicine, 17: 1–9, (2019). 2. [2] Manimaran, K., Karthikeyan, P., Ashokkumar, S., Ashok Prabu, V. and Sampathkumar, P., “Effect of copper on growth and enzyme activities of marine diatom, Odontella mobiliensis”, Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 88: 30–37, (2012). 3. [3] Zou, J., Liu Y., Wang, J., Liu, Z., Lu, Z., Chen, Z., Li, Z., Dong, B., Huang, W., Li, Y., Gao, J. and She, L., “Establishment and genomic characterizations of patient-derived esophageal squamous cell carcinoma xenograft models using biopsies for treatment optimization”, Journal of Translational Medicine, 16: 1–11, (2018). 4. [4] Houghton, P.J., Morton, C.L., Tucker, C., Payne, D., Favours, E., Cole, C., Gorlick, R., Kolb, E. A., Zhang, W., Lock, R., Carol, H., Tajbakhsh, M., Reynolds, C.P., Maris, J.M., Courtright, J., Keir, S.T., Friedman, H.S., Stopford, C., Zeidner, J., Wu, J., Liu, T., Billups, C.A., Khan, J., Ansher, S., Zhang, J. and Smith, M.A., “The pediatric preclinical testing program: description of models and early testing results”, Pediatric Blood & Cancer, 49: 928–940, (2007). 5. [5] Tsukihara, H., Nakagawa, F., Sakamoto, K., Ishida, K., Tanaka, N., Hiroyuki, O., Junji, U., Kenichi, M., Takechi, T., “Efficacy of combination chemotherapy using a novel oral chemotherapeutic agent, TAS-102, together with bevacizumab, cetuximab, or panitumumab on human colorectal cancer xenografts”, Oncology Reports, 33: 2135–2142, (2015).
|
|