Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33174010›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of oncology2020

Genomic characterization of five commonly used endometrial cancer cell lines.

Eric J Devor, Jesus Gonzalez-Bosquet, Kristina W Thiel, Kimberly K Leslie

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

29 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Betulinic acid isolated fromHistology and histopathology · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Ring-fused chlorin-enhanced photodynamic therapy for effective cell death induction in endometrial cancer.Photochemical & photobiological sciences : Official journal of the European Photochemistry Association and the European Society for Photobiology · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  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

4 authors.

Eric J DevorDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA.
Jesus Gonzalez-BosquetDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA.
Kristina W ThielDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA.
Kimberly K LeslieDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA.

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Hongbiao Carl Lekaye · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recently, the compilation of massive amounts of genetic and genomic information on a wide variety of human cancer types, collectively known as The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), has revealed a wealth of descriptive classification schemes both within and between different types and sources of cancer. In endometrial cancer, TCGA analyses have produced a post hoc scheme composed of four clusters: DNA polymerase ε catalytic subunit A (POLE) ultra‑mutated (cluster 1), microsatellite instability (MSI) hypermutated (cluster 2), copy‑number low (endometrioid, cluster 3) and copy‑number high (serous‑like, cluster 4). Given that cultured cells are the pre‑clinical platform of cancer research, it was questioned how representative endometrial cancer cultured cell lines are in the context of TCGA‑driven classification scheme. To address this issue in endometrial cancer cell lines, the present study investigated five commonly used cell lines: Ishikawa, ECC‑1, Hec50co, KLE And RL95‑2. The histology, mutation profile, MutL homolog 1 promoter methylation, copy‑number variation, homologous recombination repair and microsatellite instability in each of these cell lines was assessed. The result of this characterization was that none of the cell lines fits neatly into any one of TCGA classes but are still useful models for groups of endometrial tumors. Furthermore, the contention that the ECC‑1 cell line is actually Ishikawa was addressed using additional data. It was confirmed that ECC‑1 cells likely no longer exist as ECC‑1 but that they are not exactly Ishikawa either. For this reason, ECC‑1 cells are suggested to be used in vitro but with this caveat in mind. Finally, we compiled a database of 127 endometrial cancer cell lines, including the five reported on here. The wide range of variation found in these cell lines highlights the need to further characterize these cells to select models that are more representative of the various histological and genomic aspects of endometrial cancer.

Indexed as

Cell Line, TumorDNA Copy Number VariationsDNA Polymerase IIEndometrial NeoplasmsEndometriumFemaleHumansMicrosatellite InstabilityMutationPoly-ADP-Ribose Binding ProteinsRecombinational DNA RepairDNA Polymerase IIPOLE protein, humanPoly-ADP-Ribose Binding Proteinscell linesendometrial cancergenomicsThe Cancer Genome Atlas

Identifiers

PMID33174010
PMCPMC8811471

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.