2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.btre.2015.04.004
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Validation of three viable-cell counting methods: Manual, semi-automated, and automated

Abstract: Graphical abstract

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
109
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 159 publications
(124 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
4
109
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Table contains the expected and observed growth rates for each of the light exposure times tested. Given the variability in cell counting methodology, and that the calculated growth rates were extrapolated, the growth rates for the light exposed medium were consistent with the theoretical values, confirming the predictability of the equation and the hypothesis of zero‐order kinetics for the chemical of interest. Additionally, the control samples from this experiment had growth consistent with medium stored under standard conditions (data not shown) and therefore any changes in cell culture performance can be attributed to light exposure.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 67%
“…Table contains the expected and observed growth rates for each of the light exposure times tested. Given the variability in cell counting methodology, and that the calculated growth rates were extrapolated, the growth rates for the light exposed medium were consistent with the theoretical values, confirming the predictability of the equation and the hypothesis of zero‐order kinetics for the chemical of interest. Additionally, the control samples from this experiment had growth consistent with medium stored under standard conditions (data not shown) and therefore any changes in cell culture performance can be attributed to light exposure.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 67%
“…The number of cells was routinely checked with the trypan blue exclusion assay (Cadena-Herrera et al 2015). Cells were incubated in poly-L-lysine precoated 12-well culture plates at a density of 1 3 10 6 /mL at 37C with 95% humidity and 5% CO2.…”
Section: Primary Retinal Cell Culturementioning
confidence: 99%
“…All eight mAb C cryopreserved cell lines showed no statistically significant difference in growth rates ( P > 0.44; Supporting Information Table S1) between the fourth passage after thaw and the passage used to source the first production culture assay (Experiment 1). Although the Student's t ‐test showed a statistically significant difference in viability ( P < 0.05; Supporting Information Table S1) between these two non‐consecutive seed train passages for the mAb C cell lines (spaced ∼1 month apart), the actual difference was small (∼1%) and within the variability associated with culture viability measurements by the Vi‐Cell XR instrument …”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…Although the Student's t-test showed a statistically significant difference in viability (P < 0.05; Supporting Information Table S1) between these two non-consecutive seed train passages for the mAb C cell lines (spaced 1 month apart), the actual difference was small (1%) and within the variability associated with culture viability measurements by the Vi-Cell XR instrument. 19 By the start of the first production culture assay (Experiment 1) 1 month after recovery from thaw, the seed train viabilities were similarly high (>96%) for all 24 cryopreserved cell lines and their 24 non-cryopreserved counterparts ( Figure 3A). The growth rates for the 48 seed train cultures used to source Experiment 1 were also similar between the cryopreserved cell lines and their non-cryopreserved counterparts ( Figure 3B).…”
Section: Seed Train Performancementioning
confidence: 93%