ReviewHuman cell2026
Minimum reporting requirements for newly established human tumor-derived cell lines: a pragmatic checklist anchored to ICLAC, Cellosaurus/RRID, Nature Portfolio standards, and UKCCCR guidelines.
Review in Human cell, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Human tumor-derived cell lines remain foundational and complementary resources for mechanistic and translational cancer research. However, reports of newly established cell lines vary in the scope and completeness of basic information, and the distinction between essential reporting items and value-added characterization is often unclear. This review proposes a pragmatic Minimum reporting checklist for newly established human tumor-derived cell lines. The Minimum tier prioritizes durable, reproducibility-critical information required for establishment reports. These items include unambiguous cell line designation and Research Resource Identifier (RRID) citation, identity authentication through short tandem repeat (STR) profiling, mycoplasma status, tumor and donor provenance, ethics oversight, reproducible culture conditions, passage history and/or population doubling level, and a transparent access pathway. Tumor and donor provenance includes the diagnostic basis, key tumor specimen characteristics, and limited, anonymized clinicopathological context. The checklist is anchored in the convergence of four widely used frameworks: the International Cell Line Authentication Committee (ICLAC) Cell Line Checklist, Cellosaurus/RRID, Nature Portfolio reporting standards, and UK Co-ordinating Committee on Cancer Research (UKCCCR) guidelines. It is provided as a user-facing checklist (Table 1), a mapping to ICLAC and Cellosaurus practices (Table 2), and a crosswalk showing areas of convergence across all frameworks (Online Resource 1; Table S1). Xenografts, extensive functional phenotyping, and broad omics profiling are discussed as Recommended or Optional modules rather than Minimum requirements. Adoption of this Minimum checklist may harmonize reporting practices, improve transparency and reusability, and increase the likelihood that new cell lines, including those from rare cancers, are publicly reported, registered, and discoverable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42461324What 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.