Cargando…

Comparison of six different methods to calculate cell densities

BACKGROUND: For in vitro culture of plant and animal cells, one of the critical steps is to adjust the initial cell density. A typical example of this is isolated microspore culture, where specific cell densities have been determined for different species. Out of these ranges, microspore growth is n...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Camacho-Fernández, Carolina, Hervás, David, Rivas-Sendra, Alba, Marín, Mª Pilar, Seguí-Simarro, Jose M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5901878/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29686723
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13007-018-0297-4
_version_ 1783314675519193088
author Camacho-Fernández, Carolina
Hervás, David
Rivas-Sendra, Alba
Marín, Mª Pilar
Seguí-Simarro, Jose M.
author_facet Camacho-Fernández, Carolina
Hervás, David
Rivas-Sendra, Alba
Marín, Mª Pilar
Seguí-Simarro, Jose M.
author_sort Camacho-Fernández, Carolina
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: For in vitro culture of plant and animal cells, one of the critical steps is to adjust the initial cell density. A typical example of this is isolated microspore culture, where specific cell densities have been determined for different species. Out of these ranges, microspore growth is not induced, or is severely reduced. A similar situation occurs in many other plant and animal cell culture systems. Traditionally, researchers have used counting chambers (hemacytometers) to calculate cell densities, but little is still known about their technical advantages. In addition, much less information is available about other, alternative methods. In this work, using isolated eggplant microspore cultures and fluorescent beads (fluorospheres) as experimental systems, we performed a comprehensive comparison of six methods to calculate cell densities: (1) a Neubauer improved hemacytometer, (2) an automated cell counter, (3) a manual-counting method, and three flow cytometry methods based on (4) autofluorescence, (5) propidium iodide staining, and (6) side scattered light (SSC). RESULTS: Our results show that from a technical perspective, hemacytometers are the most reasonable option for cell counting, which may explain their widely spread use. Automated cell counters represent a good compromise between precision and affordability, although with limited accuracy. Finally, the methods based on flow cytometry were, by far, the best in terms of reproducibility and agreement between them, but they showed deficient accuracy and precision. CONCLUSIONS: Together, our results show a thorough technical evaluation of each counting method, provide unambiguous arguments to decide which one is the most convenient for the particular case of each laboratory, and in general, shed light into the best way to determine cell densities for in vitro cell cultures. They may have an impact in such a practice not only in the context of microspore culture, but also in any other plant cell culture procedure, or in any process involving particle counting. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13007-018-0297-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5901878
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-59018782018-04-23 Comparison of six different methods to calculate cell densities Camacho-Fernández, Carolina Hervás, David Rivas-Sendra, Alba Marín, Mª Pilar Seguí-Simarro, Jose M. Plant Methods Research BACKGROUND: For in vitro culture of plant and animal cells, one of the critical steps is to adjust the initial cell density. A typical example of this is isolated microspore culture, where specific cell densities have been determined for different species. Out of these ranges, microspore growth is not induced, or is severely reduced. A similar situation occurs in many other plant and animal cell culture systems. Traditionally, researchers have used counting chambers (hemacytometers) to calculate cell densities, but little is still known about their technical advantages. In addition, much less information is available about other, alternative methods. In this work, using isolated eggplant microspore cultures and fluorescent beads (fluorospheres) as experimental systems, we performed a comprehensive comparison of six methods to calculate cell densities: (1) a Neubauer improved hemacytometer, (2) an automated cell counter, (3) a manual-counting method, and three flow cytometry methods based on (4) autofluorescence, (5) propidium iodide staining, and (6) side scattered light (SSC). RESULTS: Our results show that from a technical perspective, hemacytometers are the most reasonable option for cell counting, which may explain their widely spread use. Automated cell counters represent a good compromise between precision and affordability, although with limited accuracy. Finally, the methods based on flow cytometry were, by far, the best in terms of reproducibility and agreement between them, but they showed deficient accuracy and precision. CONCLUSIONS: Together, our results show a thorough technical evaluation of each counting method, provide unambiguous arguments to decide which one is the most convenient for the particular case of each laboratory, and in general, shed light into the best way to determine cell densities for in vitro cell cultures. They may have an impact in such a practice not only in the context of microspore culture, but also in any other plant cell culture procedure, or in any process involving particle counting. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13007-018-0297-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2018-04-16 /pmc/articles/PMC5901878/ /pubmed/29686723 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13007-018-0297-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Camacho-Fernández, Carolina
Hervás, David
Rivas-Sendra, Alba
Marín, Mª Pilar
Seguí-Simarro, Jose M.
Comparison of six different methods to calculate cell densities
title Comparison of six different methods to calculate cell densities
title_full Comparison of six different methods to calculate cell densities
title_fullStr Comparison of six different methods to calculate cell densities
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of six different methods to calculate cell densities
title_short Comparison of six different methods to calculate cell densities
title_sort comparison of six different methods to calculate cell densities
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5901878/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29686723
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13007-018-0297-4
work_keys_str_mv AT camachofernandezcarolina comparisonofsixdifferentmethodstocalculatecelldensities
AT hervasdavid comparisonofsixdifferentmethodstocalculatecelldensities
AT rivassendraalba comparisonofsixdifferentmethodstocalculatecelldensities
AT marinmapilar comparisonofsixdifferentmethodstocalculatecelldensities
AT seguisimarrojosem comparisonofsixdifferentmethodstocalculatecelldensities