Cited by 35Breast Cancer Treatment StudiesCancer Cells and MetastasisBreast Lesions and Carcinomas

Multidimensional phenotyping of breast cancer cell lines to guide preclinical research

Open access
Saunus, Jodi M., Smart, Chanel E., Kutasovic, Jamie R., Johnston, Rebecca L., Kalita-de Croft, Priyakshi, Miranda, Mariska, Rozali, Esdy N., Vargas, Ana Cristina +15 more·2018·Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

Abstract

PURPOSE: Cell lines are extremely useful tools in breast cancer research. Their key benefits include a high degree of control over experimental variables and reproducibility. However, the advantages must be balanced against the limitations of modelling such a complex disease in vitro. Informed selection of cell line(s) for a given experiment now requires essential knowledge about molecular and phenotypic context in the culture dish. METHODS: We performed multidimensional profiling of 36 widely used breast cancer cell lines that were cultured under standardised conditions. Flow cytometry and digital immunohistochemistry were used to compare the expression of 14 classical breast cancer biomarkers related to intrinsic molecular profiles and differentiation states: EpCAM, CD24, CD49f, CD44, ER, AR, HER2, EGFR, E-cadherin, p53, vimentin, and cytokeratins 5, 8/18 and 19. RESULTS: This cell-by-cell analysis revealed striking heterogeneity within cultures of individual lines that would be otherwise obscured by analysing cell homogenates, particularly amongst the triple-negative lines. High levels of p53 protein, but not RNA, were associated with somatic mutations (p = 0.008). We also identified new subgroups using the nanoString PanCancer Pathways panel (730 transcripts representing 13 canonical cancer pathways). Unsupervised clustering identified five groups: luminal/HER2, immortalised ('normal'), claudin-low and two basal clusters, distinguished mostly by baseline expression of TGF-beta and PI3-kinase pathway genes. CONCLUSION: These features are compared with other published genotype and phenotype information in a user-friendly reference table to help guide selection of the most appropriate models for in vitro and in vivo studies, and as a framework for classifying new patient-derived cancer cell lines and xenografts.

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 · 10.1007/s10549-017-4496-x

Cites

27 of 27 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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Smart CE et al (2013) In vitro analysis of breast cancer cell line tumourspheres and primary human breast epithelia mammo- spheres demonstrates inter-and intrasphere heterogeneity. PLoS ONE 8(6):e64388

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Saunus, J. M., Smart, C. E., Kutasovic, J. R., Johnston, R. L., Kalita-de Croft, P., Miranda, M., Rozali, E. N., Vargas, A. C., Reid, L. E., Lorsy, E., Cocciardi, S., Seidens, T., McCart Reed, A. E., Dalley, A. J., Wockner, L. F., Johnson, J., Sarkar, D., Askarian-Amiri, M. E., Simpson, P. T., Khanna, K. K., Chenevix-Trench, G., Al-Ejeh, F., & Lakhani, S. R.
Affiliations
  • The University of Queensland (AU)
  • Vita-Salute San Raffaele University (IT)
  • QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute (AU)
  • University of Auckland (NZ)
Corresponding author
Saunus, Jodi M.
Venue
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
Published
2017-09-09
Volume
167
Issue
1
Pages
289-301
ISSN
  • 0167-6806 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-7217
OpenAlex
W2751860027
Cited by
35
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 5
FWCI
1.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Breast Cancer Research and Treatment (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ResearchSpace (University of Auckland) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Health and Medical Research Council (APP1017028, APP1113867, APP1082458)
  • Australian Research Council (FT130101417)
  • National Breast Cancer Foundation (F'ship)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Breast Cancer Treatment Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer Cells and Metastasis
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Breast Lesions and Carcinomas
Keywords
breast cancer cell lines, cell line heterogeneity, breast cancer biomarkers, triple-negative breast cancer, p53 expression, cell-of-origin classification, claudin-low breast cancer, basal-like breast cancer, TGF-beta signaling, PI3K signaling, cell line selection, patient-derived xenografts
MeSH terms
Breast Neoplasms, Female, Flow Cytometry, Genotype, Humans, Neoplasm Proteins, Phenotype, Gene Expression Regulation, Neoplastic, Genetic Heterogeneity, Gene Expression Profiling, Cell Line, Tumor

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