ArticleIn vitro cellular & developmental biology. Animal2017
Incorrect strain information for mouse cell lines: sequential influence of misidentification on sublines.
Article in In vitro cellular & developmental biology. Animal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevalence and Prevention of Reproducibility Deficiencies in Life Sciences Research: Large-Scale Meta-Analyses.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2020Pooled it
- The Cell Transformation Assay: A Historical Assessment of Current Knowledge of Applications in an Integrated Approach to Testing and Assessment for Non-Genotoxic Carcinogens.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Multiplex short tandem repeat profiling of immortalized hepatic stellate cell line Col-GFP HSC.PloS one · 2022Article
- A comprehensive analysis of e-CAS cell line reveals they are mouse macrophages.Scientific reports · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Misidentification or cross-contamination of cell lines can cause serious issues. Human cell lines have been authenticated by short tandem repeat profiling; however, mouse cell lines have not been adequately assessed. In this study, mouse cell lines registered with the JCRB cell bank were examined by simple sequence length polymorphism (SSLP) analysis to identify their strains. Based on comparisons with 7 major inbred strains, our results revealed their strains in 80 of 90 cell lines. However, 12 of the 80 cell lines (15%) were found to differ from registered information. Of them, 4 cell lines originated from the same mouse, which had been generated through mating between two different inbred strains. The genotype of the mouse sample had not been examined after the backcross, leading to strain misidentification in those cell lines. Although 8 other cell lines had been established as sublines of a BALB/c cell line, their SSLP profiles are similar to a Swiss cell line. This affects differences in genotypes between inbred and outbred strains. Because the use of inbred samples and interbreeding between strains are not involved in human materials, our results suggest that the cause and influence of misidentification in mouse cell lines are different from those in human.
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.