ReviewMedical sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Genetic Insights into the Economic Toll of Cell Line Misidentification: A Comprehensive Review.
Review in Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Biomedical Researcher's Guide for Analyzing Short Tandem Repeat (STR) Genotypes of Human Cell Lines and in Vitro Tissue Samples Using Three Standard Authentication Algorithms.Current protocols · 2026Article
- Cell line authentication: a commercial service provider perspective.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Cell line misidentification, first exposed when HeLa cells were shown to contaminate dozens of "unique" cultures, now compromises roughly one in five lines and renders thousands of papers potentially unreliable, propagating unreliable data through hundreds of thousands of citations. The financial fallout is vast with irreproducible research linked to faulty cell stocks costing the United States an estimated $28 billion each year. Today, authentication is rapid, cheap and highly accurate. Modern 24-plex short tandem repeat (STR) kits, analyzed by six-dye capillary electrophoresis and benchmarked against public databases, verify a culture in half a day for less than €40, lowering the probability of mistaken identity to less than 10-15. Complementary SNP panels, low-pass genome sequencing, digital PCR and nascent methylation "age clocks" close remaining blind spots such as aneuploidy or mixed-species co-cultures. Monte-Carlo modeling shows that even at a contamination risk of 0.07% routine STR testing yields a five-year return on investment above 3000% for a mid-size lab. Reflecting this evidence, ANSI/ATCC standards, NIH and Horizon Europe grants, major journals and FDA/EMA guidelines now encourage, recommend, or make authentication mandatory. This review discusses the historical roots and economic losses resulting from cell misidentification and contamination and offers a pragmatic roadmap to prevent working with falsified cell lines. It is further discussed that FAIR-compliant data archiving and integration of STR workflows into laboratory data management systems will allow laboratories to shift from sporadic testing of cell quality to continuous, artificial intelligence-supported assessments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.