Cited by 127Esophageal Cancer Research and TreatmentCancer Cells and MetastasisIdentification and Quantification in Food

Verification and Unmasking of Widely Used Human Esophageal Adenocarcinoma Cell Lines

Open access
Boonstra, Jurjen J., van Marion, Ronald, Beer, David G., Lin, Lin, Chaves, Paula, Ribeiro, Catarina, Pereira, A. Dias, Roque, Lúcia +11 more·2010·JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Abstract

For decades, hundreds of different human tumor type-specific cell lines have been used in experimental cancer research as models for their respective tumors. The veracity of experimental results for a specific tumor type relies on the correct derivation of the cell line. In a worldwide effort, we verified the authenticity of all available esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) cell lines. We proved that the frequently used cell lines SEG-1 and BIC-1 and the SK-GT-5 cell line are in fact cell lines from other tumor types. Experimental results based on these contaminated cell lines have led to ongoing clinical trials recruiting EAC patients, to more than 100 scientific publications, and to at least three National Institutes of Health cancer research grants and 11 US patents, which emphasizes the importance of our findings. Widespread use of contaminated cell lines threatens the development of treatment strategies for EAC.

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 · 10.1093/jnci/djp499

Cites

23 of 23 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?

  • STR profiling is the gold standard and authentication standard for cell line authentication.

    “STR profiling remains the gold standard for cell line authentication.”

    From The history, landscape, and outlook of human cell line authentication and security (2024) · cites this paper as [34]

    The authentication methods passage (labeled Abstract in our copy; page unavailable) says the authors used STR profiling to compare cell lines with original tissues, alongside TP53 mutation analysis. It supports STR profiling as an authentication method but does not call it the gold standard or establish that it remains the standard. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Consequences of false findings from misidentified cell lines are potentially severe and costly, with grants, patents and even drug trials based on misidentified cells.

    “Considering the biomedical nature of research conducted on these cell lines, consequences of false findings are potentially severe and costly [17], with grants, patents and even drug trials based on misidentified cells [18].”
  • Contamination rates and the frequency of high-profile cases demonstrate universal vulnerability to CCCM.

    “However, contamination rates and the frequency of high-profile cases demonstrate the universal vulnerability to CCCM [34][35][36][37].”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Boonstra, J. J., van Marion, R., Beer, D. G., Lin, L., Chaves, P., Ribeiro, C., Pereira, A. D., Roque, L., Darnton, S. J., Altorki, N. K., Schrump, D. S., Klimstra, D. S., Tang, L. H., Eshleman, J. R., Alvarez, H., Shimada, Y., van Dekken, H., Tilanus, H. W., & Dinjens, W. N. M.
Affiliations
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (US)
Venue
JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
Published
2010-02-24
Volume
102
Issue
4
Pages
271-274
ISSN
  • 0027-8874 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2105
OpenAlex
W2120608850
Cited by
127
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 11
FWCI
18.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • RePub (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
  • RePub (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (R01CA071606, R01CA154365)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Esophageal Cancer Research and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer Cells and Metastasis
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Identification and Quantification in Food
Keywords
esophageal adenocarcinoma, cell line contamination, cell line authentication, cancer research models
MeSH terms
Sorafenib, Adenocarcinoma, Antineoplastic Agents, Benzenesulfonates, Carcinoma, Clinical Trials as Topic, Esophageal Neoplasms, Humans, Lung Neoplasms, National Institutes of Health (U.S.), Niacinamide, Oligonucleotides, Oligopeptides, Phenylurea Compounds, Pyridines, Stomach Neoplasms, United States, Colorectal Neoplasms, DNA Fingerprinting, Carcinoma, Large Cell, Telomerase, Tandem Repeat Sequences, Biomedical Research, Cell Line, Tumor, Protein Kinase Inhibitors

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