Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log in with Windows Live Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Submit your paper to J Biol Methods today!
Photo

Large variations in MTT

MTT

  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 hanazawayien

hanazawayien

    member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts
0
Neutral

Posted 18 January 2013 - 01:52 AM

Control (Sample 1) 0.331 , 0.333 (Sample 2)0.457, 0.454 (Sample 3)0.450, 0.451
Treatment 1 (Sample 1) 0.390 , 0.374 (Sample 2)0.439, 0.458 (Sample 3)0.441, 0.444
Treatment 2 (Sample 1) 0.418 , 0.424 (Sample 2)0.446, 0.471 (Sample 3)0.406, 0.436
+ Control (Sample 1) 0.428 , 0.454 (Sample 2)0.429, 0.432 (Sample 3)0.441, 0.427


My cells are adherent cancer cells, seeded in 24-wells at 2500 cells/well and harvested on the 5th day of seeding.
Honesyly, I don't see much difference in cell density when view under microscope across all the wells.
Those data were obtained after incubation with MTT for about 2 hours, and solublised with DMSO for about 10 minutes with swirling.
The samples were then transfered to 96-wells plate for reading ( I pipet up and down)

But irrespective of that, I am expecting to get some of the treatment and + control to have about 1.5 fold increases over control... but the well-to-well variations of the same treatment set are quite big..I tried to avoid pipeting errors already..


Is there really serious problem with my pipeting? or could it be due to other factors? I have repeated the experiments several times and still don't get it work out.. What can I try to do next?
Please help... it's for my final year project which has very very tight schedule from now onwards... thx thx thx

Edited by hanazawayien, 18 January 2013 - 01:58 AM.


#2 bob1

bob1

    Thelymitra pulchella

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,657 posts
392
Excellent

Posted 20 January 2013 - 12:23 PM

Could be bubbles from the pipetting?

Volume plays a role in absorbance measurements - did you pre-wet the tip before pipetting the first wells?

A 1.5 fold difference should be visible with the naked eye - could you see something like this.

Cells settle really fast and trying to estimate if the wells have the same number is really hard by eye unless the difference is more than about 20%. It could easily be that you have fewer cells in the first wells of each replicate...

#3 shirosands

shirosands

    member

  • Active Members
  • Pip
  • 10 posts
0
Neutral

Posted 12 February 2013 - 07:57 PM

set up the experiment in a 96 well plate to reduce any pipetting error if possible,

and when removing mtt+media and before adding DMSO be very careful not to disturb the cell layer and alter results.

you can also try to add the DMSO and then watch it, help dissolve by pipetting, and then as soon as you think it's all dissolved transfer it to the 96 well plate - don't wait 10 minutes. the formazan should start dissolving right away and should be almost all dissolved within a minute I think; and perhaps spending too long in the DMSO is altering the results - I usually add DMSO, mix, and read, within 5 minutes total, and get very small errors.

are the control cells 100% confluent after 5 days or not? If not, perhaps you could plate all the cells at a higher density, so there are more of them at the end of the experiment for a greater total final reading.

it could be you are just using too few cells per well to see the difference between treatments. up the cell number to increase the final signal

#4 Tabaluga

Tabaluga

    Making glass out of shards

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 375 posts
48
Excellent

Posted 13 February 2013 - 11:44 AM

Could it possibly have to do with the "edge effect" (increased evaporation in the outer wells of multi-well plates ?

Il dort. Quoique le sort fût pour lui bien étrange,
Il vivait. Il mourut quand il n'eut plus son ange;
La chose simplement d'elle-même arriva,
Comme la nuit se fait lorsque le jour s'en va.

 






Home - About - Terms of Service - Privacy - Contact Us

©1999-2013 Protocol Online, All rights reserved.