Cited by 32Genomic variations and chromosomal abnormalitiesCancer Genomics and DiagnosticsGenome Rearrangement Algorithms

Variation in RNA expression and genomic DNA content acquired during cell culture

Open access
Hiorns, L R, Bradshaw, T D, Skelton, L A, Yu, Q, Kelland, L R, Leyland-Jones, B·2004·British Journal of Cancer

Abstract

Specific chromosomal abnormalities are increasingly recognised to be associated with particular tumour subtypes. These cytogenetic abnormalities define the sites of specific genes, the alteration of which is implicated in the neoplastic process. We used comparative genomic hybridisation (CGH) to examine DNA from different breast and ovarian cancer cell lines for variations in DNA sequence copy number compared with the same normal control. We also compared different sources of the MCF7 breast line by both CGH and cDNA expression arrays. Some of the differences between the subcultures were extensive and involved large regions of the chromosome. Differences between the four subcultures were observed for gains of 2q, 5p, 5q, 6q, 7p, 7q, 9q, 10p, 11q, 13q, 14q, 16q, 18p and 20p, and losses of 4q, 5p, 5q, 6q, 7q, 8p, 11p, 11q, 12q, 13q, 15q, 19p, 19q, 20p, 21q, 22q and Xp. However, few variations were found between two subcultures examined, 5 months apart, from the same initial source. The RNA arrays also demonstrated considerable variation between the three different subcultures, with only 43% of genes expressed at the same levels in all three. Moreover, the patterns of the expressed genes did not always reflect our observed CGH aberrations. These results demonstrate extensive genomic instability and variation in RNA expression during subculture and provide supportive data for evidence that cell lines do evolve in culture, thereby weakening the direct relevance of such cultures as models of human cancer. This work also reinforces the concern that comparisons of published analyses of cultures of the same name may be dangerous.

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 · 10.1038/sj.bjc.6601405

Cites

26 of 26 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?

  • Cell model heterogeneity can weaken the direct relevance of such cultures as models of human cancer and makes inter-laboratory reproduction of experimental findings difficult.

    “But such heterogeneity can most certainly be a curse when it comes to other common applications of such cells, as it not only weakens “the direct relevance of such cultures as models of human cancer”8 but also “makes inter-laboratory reproduction of experimental findings difficult”24.”

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. Goldin A, Schepnz SA, Venditti JM, DeVita Jr VT (1979) Historical development and current strategy of the National Cancer Institute drug development program. In Methods in Cancer Research XVI, DeVita Jr VT, Busch H (eds). pp 165–245. New York: Academic Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hiorns, L. R., Bradshaw, T. D., Skelton, L. A., Yu, Q., Kelland, L. R., & Leyland-Jones, B.
Affiliations
  • St Bartholomew's Hospital (GB)
  • University of Nottingham (GB)
  • Institute of Cancer Research (GB)
  • McGill University (CA)
Corresponding author
Leyland-Jones, B
Venue
British Journal of Cancer
Published
2004-01
Volume
90
Issue
2
Pages
476-482
ISSN
  • 0007-0920 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-1827
OpenAlex
W2079023951
Cited by
32
References
26
Citations by year
2023: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 2
FWCI
1.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal of Cancer (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Cancer Genomics and Diagnostics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genome Rearrangement Algorithms
Keywords
genomic instability, DNA copy number alterations, chromosomal abnormalities, gene expression variation, breast cancer cell lines, ovarian cancer cell lines, MCF-7 cells, comparative genomic hybridization
MeSH terms
Breast Neoplasms, Chromosome Aberrations, DNA, Neoplasm, Female, Humans, Nucleic Acid Hybridization, Ovarian Neoplasms, Tumor Cells, Cultured, Reproducibility of Results, Cell Culture Techniques, Oligonucleotide Array Sequence Analysis, Genomic Instability

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