Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31220119›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Interlaboratory study to validate a STR profiling method for intraspecies identification of mouse cell lines.

Jamie L Almeida, Aleksandra Dakic, Karin Kindig, Maikan Kone, Deborah L D Letham, Scott Langdon, Ruth Peat, Jayamalini Holding-Pillai, Erin M Hall, Mark Ladd and 13 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. HAPI Cells are SIM-A9-related Mouse Microglial Cells Useful forbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  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

23 authors at 11 institutions in 3 countries.

Jamie L AlmeidaNational Institute of Standards and Technology, Biosystems and Biomaterials Division, Gaithersburg, Maryland, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-5616-4029
Aleksandra DakicATCC, Standards Resource Center, Manassas, Virginia, United States of America.
Karin KindigATCC, Standards Resource Center, Manassas, Virginia, United States of America.
Maikan KoneATCC, Standards Resource Center, Manassas, Virginia, United States of America.
Deborah L D LethamCharles River Laboratories, Malvern, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Scott LangdonDuke University, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.
Ruth PeatThe Francis Crick Institute, Cell Services, London, United Kingdom.
Jayamalini Holding-PillaiThe Francis Crick Institute, Cell Services, London, United Kingdom.
Erin M HallGenetica Cell Line Testing -a LabCorp brand, Burlington, North Carolina, United States of America.
Mark LaddGenetica Cell Line Testing -a LabCorp brand, Burlington, North Carolina, United States of America.
Megan D ShafferGenetica Cell Line Testing -a LabCorp brand, Burlington, North Carolina, United States of America.
Heath BergIDEXX BioAnalytics, Columbia, Missouri, United States of America.
Jinliang LiLaragen Inc., Culver City, California, United States of America.
Georges WiggerMicrosynth AG, Balgach, Switzerland.
Steve LundNational Institute of Standards and Technology, Statistical Engineering Division, Gaithersburg, Maryland, United States of America.
Carolyn R SteffenNational Institute of Standards and Technology, Biomolecular Measurement Division, Gaithersburg, Maryland, United States of America.
Barbara B FranswayUniversity of Arizona, Genetics Core Lab, University of Arizona Genetics Core, Tucson, Arizona, United States of America.
Bob GeraghtyUniversity of Cambridge, Cancer Research UK, Cambridge Institute, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Manuela NatoliUniversity of Cambridge, Cancer Research UK, Cambridge Institute, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Beth BauerUniversity of Maryland, College Park, Maryland.
Susanne M GollinUniversity of Pittsburgh, Department of Human Genetics, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Dale W LewisUniversity of Pittsburgh, Department of Human Genetics, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Yvonne ReidNational Institute of Standards and Technology, Biosystems and Biomaterials Division, Gaithersburg, Maryland, United States of America.
National Institute of Standards and Technology · USAmerican Type Culture Collection · USLabCorp (United States) · USThe Francis Crick Institute · GBUniversity of Cambridge · GBUniversity of Pittsburgh · USCharles River Laboratories (United States) · USDuke University · USMicrosynth (Switzerland) · CHUniversity of Arizona · USUniversity of Maryland, College Park · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Consortium for Mouse Cell Line Authentication was formed to validate Short Tandem Repeat (STR) markers for intraspecies identification of mouse cell lines. The STR profiling method is a multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay comprised of primers targeting 19 mouse STR markers and two human STR markers (for interspecies contamination screening). The goals of the Consortium were to perform an interlaboratory study to-(1) validate the mouse STR markers to uniquely identify mouse cell lines (intraspecies identification), (2) to provide a public database of mouse cell lines with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)-validated mouse STR profiles, and (3) to publish the results of the interlaboratory study. The interlaboratory study was an international effort that consisted of 12 participating laboratories representing institutions from academia, industry, biological resource centers, and government. The study was based on 50 of the most commonly used mouse cell lines obtained from the American Type Culture Collection (ATCC). Of the 50 mouse cell lines, 18 had unique STR profiles that were 100% concordant (match) among all Consortium laboratory members, and the remaining 32 cell lines had discordance that was resolved readily and led to improvement of the assay. The discordance was due to low signal and interpretation issues involving artifacts and genotyping errors. Although the total number of discordant STR profiles was relatively high in this study, the percent of labs agreeing on allele calls among the discordant samples was above 92%. The STR profiles, including electropherogram images, for NIST-validated mouse cell lines will be published on the NCBI BioSample Database (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/biosample/). Overall, the interlaboratory study showed that the multiplex PCR method using 18 of the 19 mouse STR markers is capable of discriminating at the intraspecies level between mouse cell lines. Further studies are ongoing to refine the assay including (1) development of an allelic ladder for improving the accuracy of allele calling and (2) integration of stutter filters to identify true stutter.

Indexed as

GenotypeAllelesAnimalsCell LineGenotyping TechniquesHumansMiceMicrosatellite RepeatsMultiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction

Identifiers

PMID31220119
PMCPMC6586308
OpenAlexW2953016756

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.