ArticlePloS one2016
Multivariate Calibration Approach for Quantitative Determination of Cell-Line Cross Contamination by Intact Cell Mass Spectrometry and Artificial Neural Networks.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intact cell mass spectrometry coupled with machine learning reveals minute changes induced by single gene silencing.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Nutrients Science Research: A Review.Nutrients · 2021Review
- Rapid discrimination of multiple myeloma patients by artificial neural networks coupled with mass spectrometry of peripheral blood plasma.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Article
- Whole Cell MALDI Fingerprinting Is a Robust Tool for Differential Profiling of Two-Component Mammalian Cell Mixtures.Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry · 2019Article
- The use of an artificial neural network to model the infection strategy for baculovirus production in suspended insect cell cultures.Cytotechnology · 2018Article
- Intact Cell Mass Spectrometry as a Quality Control Tool for Revealing Minute Phenotypic Changes of Cultured Human Embryonic Stem Cells.Stem cells translational medicine · 2018Article
- Investigation of Cross-Contamination and Misidentification of 278 Widely Used Tumor Cell Lines.PloS one · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cross-contamination of eukaryotic cell lines used in biomedical research represents a highly relevant problem. Analysis of repetitive DNA sequences, such as Short Tandem Repeats (STR), or Simple Sequence Repeats (SSR), is a widely accepted, simple, and commercially available technique to authenticate cell lines. However, it provides only qualitative information that depends on the extent of reference databases for interpretation. In this work, we developed and validated a rapid and routinely applicable method for evaluation of cell culture cross-contamination levels based on mass spectrometric fingerprints of intact mammalian cells coupled with artificial neural networks (ANNs). We used human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) contaminated by either mouse embryonic stem cells (mESCs) or mouse embryonic fibroblasts (MEFs) as a model. We determined the contamination level using a mass spectra database of known calibration mixtures that served as training input for an ANN. The ANN was then capable of correct quantification of the level of contamination of hESCs by mESCs or MEFs. We demonstrate that MS analysis, when linked to proper mathematical instruments, is a tangible tool for unraveling and quantifying heterogeneity in cell cultures. The analysis is applicable in routine scenarios for cell authentication and/or cell phenotyping in general.
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.