Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23430347›Full record

ArticleCytotechnology2014

Mouse cell line authentication.

Jamie L Almeida, Carolyn R Hill, Kenneth D Cole

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cytotechnology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

36 citing papers in PubMed, 74 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. HAPI Cells are SIM-A9-related Mouse Microglial Cells Useful forbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Guidelines on the use of sex and gender in cardiovascular research.American journal of physiology. Heart and circulatory physiology · 2024
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jamie L AlmeidaBiosystems and Biomaterials Science Division, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive MS8312, Gaithersburg, MD, 20899, USA, jamie.almeida@nist.gov.
Carolyn R Hill
Kenneth D Cole
National Institute of Standards and Technology · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The scientific community has responded to the misidentification of human cell lines with validated methods to authenticate these cells; however, few assays are available for nonhuman cell line identification. We have developed a multiplex polymerase chain reaction assay that targets nine tetranucleotide short tandem repeat (STR) markers in the mouse genome. Unique profiles were obtained from seventy-two mouse samples that were used to determine the allele distribution for each STR marker. Correlations between allele fragment length and repeat number were determined with DNA Sanger sequencing. Genotypes for L929 and NIH3T3 cell lines were shown to be stable with increasing passage numbers as there were no significant differences in fragment length with samples of low passage when compared to high passage samples. In order to detect cell line contaminants, primers for two human STR markers were incorporated into the multiplex assay to facilitate detection of human and African green monkey DNA. This multiplex assay is the first of its kind to provide a unique STR profile for each individual mouse sample and can be used to authenticate mouse cell lines.

Identifiers

PMID23430347
PMCPMC3886540
OpenAlexW4247720759

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.