ArticleGynecologic oncology2015
Beyond genomics: critical evaluation of cell line utility for ovarian cancer research.
Article in Gynecologic oncology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 62 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
62 citing papers in PubMed, 79 citations in OpenAlex.
- A novel rat model of ovarian cancer and cisplatin chemotherapy-related cognitive impairment.Brain, behavior, & immunity - health · 2026Article
- Comparative Characterisation of Subcutaneous, Intraperitoneal and Intrabursal OVCAR3 Models.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Article
- Investigating PAK inhibition in combination with PD-1 blockade to enhance cytotoxic CD8+ T cell-mediated killing and suppress invasion of ovarian cancer cells.British journal of cancer · 2026Article
- Extracellular Vesicles from Bone Marrow Mesenchymal Stem Cells Modulate Proliferation, Migration, and Chemosensitivity in Ovarian Cancer Cells.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Ovarian Cancer Susceptibility and Chemosensitivity to KRAS Modulation.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Engineering immune-competent niches: strategies, applications, and translational hurdles in ovarian cancer organoid models.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Keratin 5 marks cancer-propagating cells sustained by an osteopontin-producing niche in high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma.Cancer heterogeneity and plasticity · 2026Article
- Proteomics discovery of MTDH and SND1 interaction vulnerabilities in ovarian cancer.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Carriers Multimerize STING Protein Fragments to Activate Type I Interferon Signaling in STING-Deficient Cancer Cells.Molecular pharmaceutics · 2025Article
- A multiplex single-cell RNA-Seq pharmacotranscriptomics pipeline for drug discovery.Nature chemical biology · 2025Article
- Selective anti-cancer effects of cannabidiol and Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol via PI3K/AKT/mTOR inhibition and PTEN restoration in ovarian cancer cells.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Dual Targeting of CXCancers · 2024Article
- Multicompartmentalized Microvascularized Tumor-on-a-Chip to Study Tumor-Stroma Interactions and Drug Resistance in Ovarian Cancer.Cellular and molecular bioengineering · 2024Article
- Starvation-inactivated MTOR triggers cell migration via a ULK1-SH3PXD2A/TKS5-MMP14 pathway in ovarian carcinoma.Autophagy · 2023Article
- Antiproliferative and Cytotoxic Properties of Propynoyl Betulin Derivatives against Human Ovarian Cancer Cells: In Vitro Studies.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Suicide gene strategies applied in ovarian cancer studies.Cancer gene therapy · 2023Review
- Correlation of gene expression profiles to identify pancreatic cancer cell lines that best model primary human tumors.Translational cancer research · 2023Article
- MEX3A Mediates p53 Degradation to Suppress Ferroptosis and Facilitate Ovarian Cancer Tumorigenesis.Cancer research · 2023Article
- Harnessing preclinical models for the interrogation of ovarian cancer.Journal of experimental & clinical cancer research : CR · 2022Review
2 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveComparisons of The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) with high grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC) cell lines used in research reveal that many common experimental models lack defining genomic characteristics seen in patient tumors. As cell lines exist with higher genomic fidelity to TCGA, this study aimed to evaluate the utility of these cell lines as tools for preclinical investigation.
methodsWe compared two HGSOC cell lines with supposed high genomic fidelity to TCGA, KURAMOCHI and OVSAHO, with the most commonly cited ovarian cancer cell line, SKOV3, which has poor genomic fidelity to TCGA. The lines were analyzed for genomic alterations, in vitro performance, and growth in murine xenografts.
resultsUsing targeted next generation sequencing analyses, we determined that each line had a distinct mutation profile, including alterations in TP53, and copy number variation of specific genes. KURAMOCHI and OVSAHO better recapitulated serous carcinoma morphology than SKOV3. All lines expressed PAX8 and stathmin, but KURAMOCHI and OVSAHO did not express CK7. KURAMOCHI was significantly more platinum sensitive than OVSAHO and SKOV3. Unlike SKOV3, KURAMOCHI and OVSAHO engrafted poorly in subcutaneous xenografts. KURAMOCHI and OVSAHO grew best after intraperitoneal injection in SCID mice and recapitulated miliary disease while SKOV3 grew in all murine systems and formed oligometastatic disease.
conclusionsThe research utility of HGSOC cell line models requires a comprehensive assessment of genomic as well as in vitro and in vivo properties. Cell lines with closer genomic fidelity to human tumors may have limitations in performance for preclinical investigation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.