Review




Structured Review

Keygen Biotech human normal liver epithelial cells lo2
Human Normal Liver Epithelial Cells Lo2, supplied by Keygen Biotech, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/result/human normal liver epithelial cells lo2/product/Keygen Biotech
Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
human normal liver epithelial cells lo2 - by Bioz Stars, 2026-03
90/100 stars

Images



Similar Products

98
ATCC culture human normal liver cell line lo2
Culture Human Normal Liver Cell Line Lo2, supplied by ATCC, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 98/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/result/culture human normal liver cell line lo2/product/ATCC
Average 98 stars, based on 1 article reviews
culture human normal liver cell line lo2 - by Bioz Stars, 2026-03
98/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier

90
Keygen Biotech human normal liver epithelial cells lo2
Human Normal Liver Epithelial Cells Lo2, supplied by Keygen Biotech, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/result/human normal liver epithelial cells lo2/product/Keygen Biotech
Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
human normal liver epithelial cells lo2 - by Bioz Stars, 2026-03
90/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier

99
ATCC human normal liver cell lo2 cells
The inhibition rates and IC 50 values of CEF and TTC on <t>LO2</t> cells, 293 cells and MRC-5 cells. (A) The inhibition rate of CEF and TTC at concentration of 1000 μg mL −1 on LO2 cells. The cell inhibition rate was calculated according to the data detected using the CCK-8 method. Data are expressed as the mean ± SD from three independent experiments, and significant differences were analyzed by one-way ANOVA followed by a Dunnett's t test. * p < 0.05 or ** p < 0.01 compared with the 0 min group. (B) The inhibition rate of CEF and TTC30 on LO2 cells. LO2 cells were treated with different concentrations (125 μg mL −1 , 250 μg mL −1 , 500 μg mL −1 and 1000 μg mL −1 ) of TTC30 for 24 h, (C) 48 h, and (D) 72 h. (E) The IC 50 values of CEF and CHP30 on LO2 cells after treatment for 24 h, 48 h and 72 h. (F) The inhibition rate of CEF and TTC30 on 293 cells and MRC-5 cells (G), 293 cells and MRC-5 cells were treated with different concentrations (125 μg mL −1 , 250 μg mL −1 , 500 μg mL −1 or 1000 μg mL −1 ) of TTC30 for 72 h. (H) The comparison of the IC 50 values in MRC-5 cells, LO2 cells and 293 cells after TTC30 treatment for 72 h. The cell inhibition rate was calculated according to the data detected using the CCK-8 method. Data are expressed as the mean ± SD from three independent experiments. * p < 0.05 or ** p < 0.01 compared with the CEF group using t -test analysis.
Human Normal Liver Cell Lo2 Cells, supplied by ATCC, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 99/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/result/human normal liver cell lo2 cells/product/ATCC
Average 99 stars, based on 1 article reviews
human normal liver cell lo2 cells - by Bioz Stars, 2026-03
99/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier

Image Search Results


The inhibition rates and IC 50 values of CEF and TTC on LO2 cells, 293 cells and MRC-5 cells. (A) The inhibition rate of CEF and TTC at concentration of 1000 μg mL −1 on LO2 cells. The cell inhibition rate was calculated according to the data detected using the CCK-8 method. Data are expressed as the mean ± SD from three independent experiments, and significant differences were analyzed by one-way ANOVA followed by a Dunnett's t test. * p < 0.05 or ** p < 0.01 compared with the 0 min group. (B) The inhibition rate of CEF and TTC30 on LO2 cells. LO2 cells were treated with different concentrations (125 μg mL −1 , 250 μg mL −1 , 500 μg mL −1 and 1000 μg mL −1 ) of TTC30 for 24 h, (C) 48 h, and (D) 72 h. (E) The IC 50 values of CEF and CHP30 on LO2 cells after treatment for 24 h, 48 h and 72 h. (F) The inhibition rate of CEF and TTC30 on 293 cells and MRC-5 cells (G), 293 cells and MRC-5 cells were treated with different concentrations (125 μg mL −1 , 250 μg mL −1 , 500 μg mL −1 or 1000 μg mL −1 ) of TTC30 for 72 h. (H) The comparison of the IC 50 values in MRC-5 cells, LO2 cells and 293 cells after TTC30 treatment for 72 h. The cell inhibition rate was calculated according to the data detected using the CCK-8 method. Data are expressed as the mean ± SD from three independent experiments. * p < 0.05 or ** p < 0.01 compared with the CEF group using t -test analysis.

Journal: RSC Advances

Article Title: Cytotoxicity and degradation product identification of thermally treated ceftiofur

doi: 10.1039/c9ra10289b

Figure Lengend Snippet: The inhibition rates and IC 50 values of CEF and TTC on LO2 cells, 293 cells and MRC-5 cells. (A) The inhibition rate of CEF and TTC at concentration of 1000 μg mL −1 on LO2 cells. The cell inhibition rate was calculated according to the data detected using the CCK-8 method. Data are expressed as the mean ± SD from three independent experiments, and significant differences were analyzed by one-way ANOVA followed by a Dunnett's t test. * p < 0.05 or ** p < 0.01 compared with the 0 min group. (B) The inhibition rate of CEF and TTC30 on LO2 cells. LO2 cells were treated with different concentrations (125 μg mL −1 , 250 μg mL −1 , 500 μg mL −1 and 1000 μg mL −1 ) of TTC30 for 24 h, (C) 48 h, and (D) 72 h. (E) The IC 50 values of CEF and CHP30 on LO2 cells after treatment for 24 h, 48 h and 72 h. (F) The inhibition rate of CEF and TTC30 on 293 cells and MRC-5 cells (G), 293 cells and MRC-5 cells were treated with different concentrations (125 μg mL −1 , 250 μg mL −1 , 500 μg mL −1 or 1000 μg mL −1 ) of TTC30 for 72 h. (H) The comparison of the IC 50 values in MRC-5 cells, LO2 cells and 293 cells after TTC30 treatment for 72 h. The cell inhibition rate was calculated according to the data detected using the CCK-8 method. Data are expressed as the mean ± SD from three independent experiments. * p < 0.05 or ** p < 0.01 compared with the CEF group using t -test analysis.

Article Snippet: Human normal liver cell LO2 cells (American Type Culture Collection, ATCC), human embryonic kidney cells 293 cells (ATCC), human embryonic lung diploid MRC-5 cells (ATCC), Mouse renal tubular epithelial cells (mTEC) were purchased from the China Cell Line Bank (Beijing, China) and cultured in RPMI 1640, DMEM, MEM and RPMI 1640 containing 10% FBS and 1% penicillin–streptomycin, respectively.

Techniques: Inhibition, Concentration Assay, CCK-8 Assay, Comparison

Fluorescence observation of LO2 cells stained by Hoechst 33342 and PI after treatment with concentrations of 1000 μg mL −1 of CEF or TTC30 for 24 h; 200× magnification. The chromatin shrunk (yellow arrow) and the nucleus fragmented (white arrow).

Journal: RSC Advances

Article Title: Cytotoxicity and degradation product identification of thermally treated ceftiofur

doi: 10.1039/c9ra10289b

Figure Lengend Snippet: Fluorescence observation of LO2 cells stained by Hoechst 33342 and PI after treatment with concentrations of 1000 μg mL −1 of CEF or TTC30 for 24 h; 200× magnification. The chromatin shrunk (yellow arrow) and the nucleus fragmented (white arrow).

Article Snippet: Human normal liver cell LO2 cells (American Type Culture Collection, ATCC), human embryonic kidney cells 293 cells (ATCC), human embryonic lung diploid MRC-5 cells (ATCC), Mouse renal tubular epithelial cells (mTEC) were purchased from the China Cell Line Bank (Beijing, China) and cultured in RPMI 1640, DMEM, MEM and RPMI 1640 containing 10% FBS and 1% penicillin–streptomycin, respectively.

Techniques: Fluorescence, Staining

Flow cytometry analysis of LO2 cells treated with concentration of 1000 μg mL −1 of CEF, TTC30 or TTC60 for 24 h using FITC-Annexin V/PI staining. (A) Cells were stained with Annexin V-FITC/PI dyes at room temperature for 15 min in the dark and analyzed by using flow cytometry. (B) Quantity of apoptosis rates for LO2 cells based on the flow cytometry assay results. Data are expressed as the mean ± SD from three independent experiments. * p < 0.05 or ** p < 0.01 compared with the control group using t -test analysis.

Journal: RSC Advances

Article Title: Cytotoxicity and degradation product identification of thermally treated ceftiofur

doi: 10.1039/c9ra10289b

Figure Lengend Snippet: Flow cytometry analysis of LO2 cells treated with concentration of 1000 μg mL −1 of CEF, TTC30 or TTC60 for 24 h using FITC-Annexin V/PI staining. (A) Cells were stained with Annexin V-FITC/PI dyes at room temperature for 15 min in the dark and analyzed by using flow cytometry. (B) Quantity of apoptosis rates for LO2 cells based on the flow cytometry assay results. Data are expressed as the mean ± SD from three independent experiments. * p < 0.05 or ** p < 0.01 compared with the control group using t -test analysis.

Article Snippet: Human normal liver cell LO2 cells (American Type Culture Collection, ATCC), human embryonic kidney cells 293 cells (ATCC), human embryonic lung diploid MRC-5 cells (ATCC), Mouse renal tubular epithelial cells (mTEC) were purchased from the China Cell Line Bank (Beijing, China) and cultured in RPMI 1640, DMEM, MEM and RPMI 1640 containing 10% FBS and 1% penicillin–streptomycin, respectively.

Techniques: Flow Cytometry, Concentration Assay, Staining, Control

The effect of CEF-1 on LO2 cells and mTEC cells. (A) LO2 cells were treated with CEF-1 at concentrations of 50 μg mL −1 , 100 μg mL −1 , 200 μg mL −1 or 400 μg mL −1 for 24 h. (B) Comparison of the IC50 values after 24 h of treatment among CEF, TTC30 and CEF-1. (C) Fluorescence observation of LO2 cells stained by JC-1 after treatment with CEF-1 at concentrations of 100 μg mL −1 , 200 μg mL −1 and 400 μg mL −1 for 24 h; 200× magnification. (D) mTEC cells were treated with CEF, TTC60 and CEF-1 at concentrations of 100 μg mL −1 and 400 μg mL −1 for 72 h. Cell inhibition rates were calculated according to the data detected using the CCK-8 method. Data are expressed as the mean ± SD from three independent experiments, and significant differences were analyzed by one-way ANOVA followed by a Newman–Keuls test. Different letters indicate significant difference between groups ( p < 0.05).

Journal: RSC Advances

Article Title: Cytotoxicity and degradation product identification of thermally treated ceftiofur

doi: 10.1039/c9ra10289b

Figure Lengend Snippet: The effect of CEF-1 on LO2 cells and mTEC cells. (A) LO2 cells were treated with CEF-1 at concentrations of 50 μg mL −1 , 100 μg mL −1 , 200 μg mL −1 or 400 μg mL −1 for 24 h. (B) Comparison of the IC50 values after 24 h of treatment among CEF, TTC30 and CEF-1. (C) Fluorescence observation of LO2 cells stained by JC-1 after treatment with CEF-1 at concentrations of 100 μg mL −1 , 200 μg mL −1 and 400 μg mL −1 for 24 h; 200× magnification. (D) mTEC cells were treated with CEF, TTC60 and CEF-1 at concentrations of 100 μg mL −1 and 400 μg mL −1 for 72 h. Cell inhibition rates were calculated according to the data detected using the CCK-8 method. Data are expressed as the mean ± SD from three independent experiments, and significant differences were analyzed by one-way ANOVA followed by a Newman–Keuls test. Different letters indicate significant difference between groups ( p < 0.05).

Article Snippet: Human normal liver cell LO2 cells (American Type Culture Collection, ATCC), human embryonic kidney cells 293 cells (ATCC), human embryonic lung diploid MRC-5 cells (ATCC), Mouse renal tubular epithelial cells (mTEC) were purchased from the China Cell Line Bank (Beijing, China) and cultured in RPMI 1640, DMEM, MEM and RPMI 1640 containing 10% FBS and 1% penicillin–streptomycin, respectively.

Techniques: Comparison, Fluorescence, Staining, Inhibition, CCK-8 Assay