Plating efficiencies (PEs) of primary human tumors cloned in a capillary assay system were compared to those derived from the conventional two-layer agar Petri dish assay system. A total of 143 consecutively received primary human tumors of 24 different pathologies were simultaneously tested in both assay systems. The successful clonal growth rate in the capillary assay was 82.7%, while in the Petri dish it was 64.7% (&p<0.001). The median PE was 0.017% in the capillary assay demonstrating a 4.25-fold increase over the 0.004% PE of the Petri dish system. The data confirmed previous results showing that cancer cells of ovarian, breast, and lung origins clone with higher PE in capillary tubes. In contrast, we confirmed that stomach carcinoma cells were the only tumor type that showed a higher PE with the Petri dish method. In addition, this study shows for the first time that lymphomas and renal cell carcinoma, when they survive in vitro, clone equally well in both methods. However, the capillary cloning method resulted in a 66% success rate for lymphoma cell cloning, but Petri dish cloning resulted in only a 33% success rate. Thus, for some types of cancers (i.e., lymphoma), capillary cloning may be advantageous because it improves the probability of obtaining evaluable results. In other cases, the advantage of capillary cloning may be only the decreased amount of specimen and reagents needed for the assay.

Keywords:
Capillary cloning, Two-layer agar plating, Human tumors, Plating efficiency
This content is only available via PDF.
© 1990 S. Karger AG, Basel
1990
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.