The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparison of HepG2 and HepaRG by Whole-Genome Gene Expression Analysis for the Purpose of Chemical Hazard Identification
Open accessAbstract
Direct comparison of the hepatoma cell lines HepG2 and HepaRG has previously been performed by only evaluating a limited set of genes or proteins. In this study, we examined the whole-genome gene expression of both cell lines before and after exposure to the genotoxic (GTX) carcinogens aflatoxin B1 and benzo[a]pyrene and the nongenotoxic (NGTX) carcinogens cyclosporin A, 17beta-estradiol, and 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-para-dioxin for 12 and 48 h. Before exposure, this analysis revealed an extensive network of genes and pathways, which were regulated differentially for each cell line. The comparison of the basal gene expression between HepG2, HepaRG, primary human hepatocytes (PHH), and liver clearly showed that HepaRG resembles PHH and liver the most. After exposure to the GTX and NGTX carcinogens, for both cell lines, common pathways were found that are important in carcinogenesis, for example, cell cycle regulation and apoptosis. However, also clear differences between exposed HepG2 and HepaRG were observed, and these are related to common metabolic processes, immune response, and transcription processes. Furthermore, HepG2 performs better in discriminating between GTX and NGTX carcinogens. In conclusion, these results have shown that HepaRG is a more suited in vitro liver model for biological interpretations of the effects of exposure to chemicals, whereas HepG2 is a more promising in vitro liver model for classification studies using the toxicogenomics approach. Although, it should be noted that only five carcinogens were used in this study.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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 source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Commercial cell lines including HepG2/C3A provide a more stable, easy-to-handle and readily available source of human cells for in vitro studies on liver function and general mechanisms of toxicity [58,59].”
From A liver-on-a-chip platform with bioprinted hepatic spheroids (2016) · cites this paper as [58]
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.
Citations
Cites
Mosmann, T. (1983) · Journal of Immunological Methods · doi:10.1016/0022-1759(83)90303-4 · Cited by 56,104
Exploration, normalization, and summaries of high density oligonucleotide array probe level data
Irizarry, R. A. (2003) · Biostatistics · doi:10.1093/biostatistics/4.2.249 · Cited by 10,603
Diagnosis of multiple cancer types by shrunken centroids of gene expression
Tibshirani, R. J., Hastie, T. J., Narasimhan, B., & Chu, G. (2002) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.082099299 · Cited by 2,931
Reich, M. M., Liefeld, T., Gould, J., Lerner, J., Tamayo, P., & Mesirov, J. P. (2006) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/ng0506-500 · Cited by 2,053
Evolving gene/transcript definitions significantly alter the interpretation of GeneChip data
Dai, M. (2005) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gni179 · Cited by 1,807
Cytochrome P450 and Chemical Toxicology
Guengerich, F. P. (2007) · Chemical Research in Toxicology · doi:10.1021/tx700079z · Cited by 1,789
Gelboin, H. V. (1980) · Physiological Reviews · doi:10.1152/physrev.1980.60.4.1107 · Cited by 1,280
Wilkening, S., Stahl, F., & Bader, A. (2003) · Drug Metabolism and Disposition · doi:10.1124/dmd.31.8.1035 · Cited by 794
Guillouzo, A., Corlu, A., Aninat, C., Glaise, D., Morel, F., & Guguen‐Guillouzo, C. (2006) · Chemico-Biological Interactions · doi:10.1016/j.cbi.2006.12.003 · Cited by 714
Cytochrome P450-mediated metabolism of estrogens and its regulation in human
Tsuchiya, Y., Nakajima, M., & Yokoi, T. (2005) · Cancer Letters · doi:10.1016/j.canlet.2004.10.007 · Cited by 616
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Gerets, H. H. J., Tilmant, K., Gerin, B., Chanteux, H., Depelchin, B. O., Dhalluin, S., & Atienzar, F. A. (2012) · Cell Biology and Toxicology · doi:10.1007/s10565-011-9208-4 · Cited by 698
A liver-on-a-chip platform with bioprinted hepatic spheroids
Bhise, N. S., Manoharan, V., Massa, S., Tamayol, A., Ghaderi, M., Miscuglio, M., Lang, Q., Shrike Zhang, Y., Shin, S. R., Calzone, G., et al. (2016) · Biofabrication · doi:10.1088/1758-5090/8/1/014101 · Cited by 615
The Curious Case of the HepG2 Cell Line: 40 Years of Expertise
Arzumanian, V. A., Kiseleva, O. I., & Poverennaya, E. V. (2021) · International Journal of Molecular Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijms222313135 · Cited by 387
Organotypic liver culture models: meeting current challenges in toxicity testing
LeCluyse, E. L., Witek, R. P., Andersen, M. E., & Powers, M. J. (2012) · Critical Reviews in Toxicology · doi:10.3109/10408444.2012.682115 · Cited by 363
Guo, L., Dial, S., Shi, L., Branham, W., Liu, J., Fang, J.-L., Green, B., Deng, H., Kaput, J., & Ning, B. (2011) · Drug Metabolism and Disposition · doi:10.1124/dmd.110.035873 · Cited by 348
Metadata
- Authors
- Jennen, D. G. J., Magkoufopoulou, C., Ketelslegers, H. B., van Herwijnen, M. H. M., Kleinjans, J. C. S., & van Delft, J. H. M.
- Affiliations
- Maastricht University (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Jennen, Danyel G. J.
- Venue
- Toxicological Sciences
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2010-01-27
- Volume
- 115
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 66-79
- ISSN
- 1096-0929 (ISSN-L)
- 1096-6080
- OpenAlex
- W2169675397
- Cited by
- 220
- References
- 42
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 21
- FWCI
- 5.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Toxicological Sciences (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- European Commission (LSHB-CT-2006-037712)
- Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
- Stichting voor de Technische Wetenschappen (MFA6809)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Carcinogens and Genotoxicity Assessment
- Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Drug-Induced Hepatotoxicity and Protection
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene expression and cancer classification
- Keywords
- HepG2 cells, HepaRG cells, hepatoma cell lines, in vitro liver models, carcinogenicity classification, genotoxic carcinogens, non-genotoxic carcinogens, aflatoxin B1, benzo[a]pyrene, cyclosporine, estradiol, 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, whole-genome gene expression, toxicogenomics, primary human hepatocytes, cell cycle regulation, apoptosis, chemical hazard identification
- MeSH terms
- Carcinogens, Humans, Predictive Value of Tests, Carcinogenicity Tests, Gene Expression Regulation, Neoplastic, Risk Assessment, Gene Expression Profiling, Hepatocytes, Genomics, Animal Use Alternatives, Hep G2 Cells
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
