Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37762103›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of molecular sciences2023

A Case Study from the Past: "The RGC-5 vs. the 661W Cell Line: Similarities, Differences and Contradictions-Are They Really the Same?"

José Hurst, Gesine Attrodt, Karl-Ulrich Bartz-Schmidt, Ulrike Angelika Mau-Holzmann, Martin Stephan Spitzer, Sven Schnichels

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of molecular sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Stress Granule Induction in Rat Retinas Damaged by Constant LED Light.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2025
    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

6 authors.

José HurstCenter for Ophthalmology, University Eye Hospital Tübingen, Elfriede-Aulhorn-Str. 7, 72076 Tuebingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8697-2569
Gesine AttrodtCenter for Ophthalmology, University Eye Hospital Tübingen, Elfriede-Aulhorn-Str. 7, 72076 Tuebingen, Germany.
Karl-Ulrich Bartz-SchmidtCenter for Ophthalmology, University Eye Hospital Tübingen, Elfriede-Aulhorn-Str. 7, 72076 Tuebingen, Germany.
Ulrike Angelika Mau-HolzmannInstitute for Medical Genetics and Applied Genomics, Center for Rare Diseases, University of Tuebingen, Calwerstrasse 7, 72076 Tübingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4125-4643
Martin Stephan SpitzerDepartment of Ophthalmology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Martinistraße 52, 20251 Hamburg, Germany.
Sven SchnichelsCenter for Ophthalmology, University Eye Hospital Tübingen, Elfriede-Aulhorn-Str. 7, 72076 Tuebingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2385-5517

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the pursuit of identifying the underlying pathways of ocular diseases, the use of cell lines such as (retinal ganglion cell-5) RGC-5 and 661W became a valuable tool, including pathologies like retinal degeneration and glaucoma. In 2001, the establishment of the RGC-5 cell line marked a significant breakthrough in glaucoma research. Over time, however, concerns arose about the true nature of RGC-5 cells, with conflicting findings in the literature regarding their identity as retinal ganglion cells or photoreceptor-like cells. This study aimed to address the controversy surrounding the RGC-5 cell line's origin and properties by comparing it with the 661W cell line, a known cone photoreceptor model. Both cell lines were differentiated according to two prior published redifferentiation protocols under the same conditions using 500 nM of trichostatin A (TSA) and investigated for their morphological and neuronal marker properties. The results demonstrated that both cell lines are murine, and they exhibited distinct morphological and neuronal marker properties. Notably, the RGC-5 cells showed higher expression of the neuronal marker β-III tubulin and increased Thy-1-mRNA compared with the 661W cells, providing evidence of their different properties. The findings emphasize the importance of verifying the authenticity of cell lines used in ocular research and highlight the risks of contamination and altered cell properties.

Indexed as

Drug ContaminationGlaucomaAnimalsCell DifferentiationCell LineMiceRetinal Cone Photoreceptor CellsTubulinTubulindifferentiation protocolglaucomaRGC-5 & 661W

Identifiers

PMID37762103
PMCPMC10531351

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.