Cited by 185Identification and Quantification in FoodGenetic diversity and population structureMolecular Biology Techniques and Applications

High‐throughput SNP‐based authentication of human cell lines

Open access
Castro, Felipe, Dirks, Wilhelm G., Fähnrich, Silke, Hotz‐Wagenblatt, Agnes, Pawlita, Michael, Schmitt, Markus·2013·International Journal of Cancer

Abstract

Use of false cell lines remains a major problem in biological research. Short tandem repeat (STR) profiling represents the gold standard technique for cell line authentication. However, mismatch repair (MMR)‐deficient cell lines are characterized by microsatellite instability, which could force allelic drifts in combination with a selective outgrowth of otherwise persisting side lines, and, thus, are likely to be misclassified by STR profiling. On the basis of the high‐throughput Luminex platform, we developed a 24‐plex single nucleotide polymorphism profiling assay, called multiplex cell authentication (MCA), for determining authentication of human cell lines. MCA was evaluated by analyzing a collection of 436 human cell lines from the German Collection of Microorganisms and Cell Cultures, previously characterized by eight‐loci STR profiling. Both assays showed a very high degree of concordance and similar average matching probabilities (∼1 × 10 −8 for STR profiling and ∼1 × 10 −9 for MCA). MCA enabled the detection of less than 3% of contaminating human cells. By analyzing MMR‐deficient cell lines, evidence was obtained for a higher robustness of the MCA compared to STR profiling. In conclusion, MCA could complement routine cell line authentication and replace the standard authentication STR technique in case of MSI cell lines.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ijc.27675

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The 8 SNP mismatches suggested that HCCC-9810 and Calu-6 were from different origins.

    “The SNP genotyping at 24-loci showed that there were 8 mismatches loci between HCCC-9810 and Calu-6 cell line, suggesting that they were from different origins [30].”

    From Investigation of Cross-Contamination and Misidentification of 278 Widely Used Tumor Cell Lines (2017) · cites this paper as [30]

    The Results section ('Probability of discrimination and pair-wise analysis'; page unavailable) says that 0–2 mismatches across 24 SNPs indicate identical cell lines, supporting the inference that eight mismatches suggest different origins. Our copy does not report an eight-mismatch comparison between HCCC-9810 and Calu-6; searches for both cell-line names found no matching passage. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • SNP genotyping at 24 loci showed 8 mismatches between HCCC-9810 and Calu-6.

    “The SNP genotyping at 24-loci showed that there were 8 mismatches loci between HCCC-9810 and Calu-6 cell line, suggesting that they were from different origins [30].”

    From Investigation of Cross-Contamination and Misidentification of 278 Widely Used Tumor Cell Lines (2017) · cites this paper as [30]

    The Methods (MCA-SNP typing; Statistics, page unavailable) describe genotyping 24 SNP loci. The Results (Analysis of DSMZ cell line collection by MCA, page unavailable) confirm that all 24 loci could be typed simultaneously, but do not report a comparison of HCCC-9810 with Calu-6 or eight mismatches; searches for both cell-line names found no such result. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 29 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Castro, F., Dirks, W. G., Fähnrich, S., Hotz‐Wagenblatt, A., Pawlita, M., & Schmitt, M.
Affiliations
  • German Cancer Research Center (DE)
  • Leibniz Institute DSMZ – German Collection of Microorganisms and Cell Cultures (DE)
Corresponding author
Schmitt, Markus
Venue
International Journal of Cancer
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-06-28
Volume
132
Issue
2
Pages
308-314
ISSN
  • 0020-7136 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0215
OpenAlex
W2012627890
Cited by
183
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 1
FWCI
5.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Cancer (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Cancer Institute (ZIACP010210)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Identification and Quantification in Food
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic diversity and population structure
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology Techniques and Applications
Keywords
short tandem repeat profiling, mismatch repair deficiency, microsatellite instability, Luminex bead immunoassay, match probability
MeSH terms
Cell Line, Humans, Reference Standards, Reproducibility of Results, Cell Culture Techniques, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide, Microsatellite Instability, DNA Mismatch Repair, Genetic Loci, Limit of Detection, Genotyping Techniques

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review