Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38200430›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2024

Building in vitro tools for livestock genomics: chromosomal variation within the PK15 cell line.

M Johnsson, J M Hickey, M K Jungnickel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2024. 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. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

3 authors.

M JohnssonDepartment of Animal Breeding and Genetics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 7023, 750 07, Uppsala, Sweden. martin.johnsson@slu.se.
J M HickeyThe Roslin Institute and Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, The University of Edinburgh, Midlothian, Scotland, EH25 9RG, UK.
M K JungnickelThe Roslin Institute and Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, The University of Edinburgh, Midlothian, Scotland, EH25 9RG, UK. melissa.jungnickel@ei.ed.ac.uk.

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BBS/E/D/30002275
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCultured porcine cell lines are powerful tools for functional genomics and in vitro phenotypic testing of candidate causal variants. However, to be utilised for genomic or variant interrogation assays, the genome sequence and structure of cultured cell lines must be realised. In this work, we called variants and used read coverage in combination with within-sample allele frequency to detect potential aneuploidy in two immortalised porcine kidney epithelial (PK15) cell lines and in a pig embryonic fibroblast line.

resultsWe compared two PK15 cultured cells samples: a new American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) sample and one that has been utilised and passaged within the laboratory for an extended period (> 10 years). Read coverage and within-sample allele frequencies showed that several chromosomes are fully or partially aneuploid in both PK15 lines, including potential trisomy of chromosome 4 and tetrasomy of chromosome 17. The older PK15 line showed evidence of additional structural variation and potentially clonal variation. By comparison, the pig embryonic fibroblast line was free from the gross aneuploidies seen in the PK15s.

conclusionsOur results show that the PK15 cell lines examined have aneuploidies and complex structural variants in their genomes. We propose that screening for aneuploidy should be considered for cell lines, and discuss implications for livestock genomics.

Indexed as

GenomicsLivestockAneuploidyAnimalsCell LineChromosomesSwineAneuploidyCell linesPigPK15

Identifiers

PMID38200430
PMCPMC10782621

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.