ReviewIn vitro cellular & developmental biology. Animal2017
Best practices for authenticating cell lines.
Review 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 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Investigation of the mixed origins of the MGC-803 cell line reveals that it is a hybrid cell line derived from HeLa.Human cell · 2024Article
- Establishment, authenticity, and characterization of cervical cancer cell lines.Molecular & cellular oncology · 2022Review
- Short tandem repeat profiling for the authentication of cancer stem-like cells.International journal of cancer · 2021Article
- Experimental models of endocrine responsive breast cancer: strengths, limitations, and use.Cancer drug resistance (Alhambra, Calif.) · 2021Article
- Authentication, characterization and contamination detection of cell lines, xenografts and organoids by barcode deep NGS sequencing.NAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2020Article
- Opinion: Are Organoids the End of Model Evolution for Studying Host Intestinal Epithelium/Microbe Interactions?Microorganisms · 2019Review
- Major changes of cell function and toxicant sensitivity in cultured cells undergoing mild, quasi-natural genetic drift.Archives of toxicology · 2018Article
- HuH-7 reference genome profile: complex karyotype composed of massive loss of heterozygosity.Human cell · 2018Article
- Screening for 15 pathogenic viruses in human cell lines registered at the JCRB Cell Bank: characterization ofRoyal Society open science · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Experiments using cell cultures are only valid to the extent that the cell culture is a true model system for the biological system being investigated. To assure that a cell line is and remains an appropriate biological model, its identity, purity, ploidy, and phenotype must be maintained. These characteristics comprise and determine the authenticity of a cell line. Routine monitoring of the cell line through microscopic examination of morphology can help to determine authenticity, as can the determination of phenotypic status. Assays designed to confirm cell identity and ploidy and freedom from cross-contaminating cell types may need to be performed at certain times, as such information may not be obtained through morphologic and phenotypic examinations alone. The best practices associated with establishing cell line authenticity are described in this article.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29197028What 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.