Cell and Tissue Banking

, Volume 16, Issue 3, pp 325–329 | Cite as

Technical note: comparison of the PrestoBlue and LDH release assays with the MTT assay for skin viability assessment

  • Sonia Gaucher
  • Mohamed Jarraya
Brief Communication


MTT assay is the gold standard for assessing skin sample viability but it is time-consuming. Here we compared the MTT test with two other assays for the assessment of skin viability. The MTT, PrestoBlue (colorimetric method) and LDH release assays were applied to fresh and cryopreserved skin. Skin viability was considered proportional to the optical density values of the relevant analytes. PrestoBlue did not reliably distinguish between fresh and cryopreserved skin. The LDH release assay did not allow us to establish a viability index. We recommend the MTT assay for assessing skin viability.


Skin viability MTT PrestoBlue LDH release Optical density 



Our special thanks to Thierry Marchix and all the members of the Tissue Bank technical team.

Conflict of interest



  1. Boncler M, Rozalski M, Krajewska U, Podsedek A, Watala C (2014) Comparison of PrestoBlue and MTT assays of cellular viability in assessment of anti-proliferative effects of plant extracts on human endothelial cells. J Pharmacol Toxicol Methods 69:9–16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bravo D, Rigley TH, Gibran N, Strong DM, Newman Gage H (2000) Effects of storage and preservation methods on viability in transplantable human skin allografts. Burns 26:367–378PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Castagnoli C, Alotto D, Cambieri I, Casimir R, Aluffi M, Stella M, Alasia ST, Magliacani G (2003) Evaluation of donor skin viability: fresh and cryopreserved skin using tetrazolium salt assay. Burns 29:759–767PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gaucher S, Elie C, Vérola O, Jarraya M (2012) Viability of cryopreserved skin allografts: effects of transport media and cryoprotectant. Cell Tissue Bank 2012(13):147–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hershey FB, Cruisckshank CND, Mullins LI (1958) The quantitative reduction of 2, 3, 5-triphenyl tetrazolium chloride by skin in vitro. J Histochem Cytochem 6:191–196PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Klein MB, Shaw D, Barese S, Chapo GA, Cuono CB (1996) A reliable and cost-effective in vitro assay of skin viability for skin banks and burn centers. J Burn Care Rehabil 17:565–570PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Korzeniewski C, Callewaert DM (1983) An enzyme-release assay for natural cytotoxicity. J Immunol Methods 64:313–320PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Messager S, Hann AC, Goddard PA, Dettmar PW, Maillard JY (2003) Assessment of skin viability: is it necessary to use different methodologies? Skin Res Technol 9:321–330PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Mosmann T (1983) Rapid colorimetric assay for cellular growth and survival: application to proliferation and cytotoxicity assays. J Immunol Methods 65:55–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculté de MédecineUniversité Paris DescartesParisFrance
  2. 2.Service de Chirurgie Générale, Plastique et AmbulatoireHôpitaux Universitaires Paris Centre, Site Port-Royal, AP-HPParisFrance
  3. 3.Banque de Tissus HumainsHôpitaux Universitaires Saint-Louis Lariboisière, Site Saint Louis, AP-HPParisFrance

Personalised recommendations