Use of in vitro versus in cellulo - Your thoughts (Oct/10/2007 )
Hi everyone,
Not a particularly urgent matter, but I just wondered on people's thoughts on the use of the term in cellulo versus in vitro?
I know that some people like to use in cellulo to differentiate work done in cell cultures, say, from work using cell extracts or purified protein, whereas others insist both should be referred to as in vitro experiments.
What do you guys think?
Cheers,
Ben
Maybe "in test tube" is more frequently used.
Not a particularly urgent matter, but I just wondered on people's thoughts on the use of the term in cellulo versus in vitro?
I know that some people like to use in cellulo to differentiate work done in cell cultures, say, from work using cell extracts or purified protein, whereas others insist both should be referred to as in vitro experiments.
What do you guys think?
Cheers,
Ben
"in vitro" does not imply if you working with cell culture cells, dead cells, cell isolates or just proteins or other cellular molecules; "in cellulo" stresses that you are working with living cells
Different terms to differentiate the type of experiments done is very helpful. I would prefer use separate terms, one for test tube and other for cell culture experiments.
in testubo, in cellulo, in stantaneouso, etc.
Just to play devils advocate, isn't it usually obvious what kind of experiment has taken place from the paper description, so in vitro should all thats required 
After all its all in vitro-cell extracts, proteins or cell lines have all come out of their original environments.
Although it would be amusing to read a paper with descriptions such as in eppendorfo and in statneouso, in labo, in pubo etc.
I'm with you, lost in the lab 
Personally I HATE the term in cellulo, it would sound far less wanky to say something like in cell culture if you have a problem with the term in vitro. But thats just my opinion!!!
After all its all in vitro-cell extracts, proteins or cell lines have all come out of their original environments.
Although it would be amusing to read a paper with descriptions such as in eppendorfo and in statneouso, in labo, in pubo etc.
Right, in my view, in test tube and in vitro should cover all the basis.
Although it will be clear from the description what took place, the same could be said of the terms [in vivo] and in vitro.
I think in cellulo quickly and acurately informs the reader the type of experiment without wasting wordage (although whether you approve of Latinised phrases such as in cellulo and in silico is a separate issue!), which is the function of in vivo and in vitro anyway. What's wrong with adding a few extra to help keep things informative and concise?
I think its up to whether the term in cellulo can gain its popularity or not. It forms a nice pair with in silico. However, niether term is frequently used by most biologists.
I think in cellulo quickly and acurately informs the reader the type of experiment without wasting wordage (although whether you approve of Latinised phrases such as in cellulo and in silico is a separate issue!), which is the function of in vivo and in vitro anyway. What's wrong with adding a few extra to help keep things informative and concise?
I'm not sure that adding 'in cellulo' or other phrases adds anymore quickly informs the reader about the type of experiment anymore than 'in vitro' does- is really anymore informative? I'm not sure it is. As long as the wordage (description of experiment) is consise and easy to follow that should be sufficient(which is kind of what I've said before).
I personally would hate to read papers where its full of phrases like in cellulo etc. as it does sound somewhat pretentious. Maybe in time these phrases will become more used, but I hope not.
Lets keep it easy to understand for everyone folks!