Cited by 24Academic Publishing and Open AccessResearch Data Management PracticesAnimal testing and alternatives

The Extensive and Expensive Impacts of HEp-2 [HeLa], Intestine 407 [HeLa], and Other False Cell Lines in Journal Publications

Open access
Korch, Christopher T., Capes-Davis, Amanda·2021·SLAS Discovery

Abstract

Cell lines are essential models for biomedical research. However, they have a common and important problem that needs to be addressed. Cell lines can be misidentified, meaning that they no longer correspond to the donor from whom the cells were first obtained. This problem may arise due to cross-contamination: the accidental introduction of cells from another culture. The contaminant, which is often a rapidly dividing cell line, will overgrow and replace the original culture. The end result is a false cell line, also known as a misidentified or imposter cell line. False cell lines may come from an entirely different species, tissue, or cell type than the original donor. If undetected, false cell lines produce unreliable and irreproducible results that pollute the biomedical literature and threaten the development of reliable drug discovery and meaningful patient treatments.The goal of this study was to ascertain how widespread this problem is and how it affects the literature, as well as to estimate how much funding has been used to produce pools of scientific literature of questionable value. We focus on HEp-2 [HeLa] and Intestine 407 [HeLa], two false cell lines that are widely used in the scientific literature but were shown to be cross-contaminated in 1967. These two cell lines have been used in 8497 and 1397 published articles and extensively described as laryngeal cancer and normal intestine, respectively, rather than their true identity: the cervical cancer cell line HeLa. Discussed are tools, approaches, and resources that can address this issue-both retrospectively and prospectively.

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 · 10.1177/24725552211051963

Cites

55 of 55 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?

  • Up to 30% of cell lines may be misidentified, leading to substantial financial losses.

    “The prevalence of CCCM is alarmingly high, with estimates suggesting that up to 30% of cell lines may be misidentified, leading to substantial financial losses [2][3][4].”

    From The history, landscape, and outlook of human cell line authentication and security (2024) · cites this paper as [2]

    The “Present Day: Cross-Contamination Persists and the Problem Is Worsening” section (page not provided) reports an average misidentification rate of 22.1% across 16 collections, but not an upper limit of 30%; it says reported proportions range from 10% to 100%. “What Is the Cost of This Type of Research?” (page not provided) estimates substantial research-funding costs associated with false cell lines, supporting the financial-loss portion. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • A single lab published 2.65% of HEp-2 work, and although they ceased using the line after being alerted, none of their articles were retracted or labelled with alerts.

    “A single lab published 2.65% of this work.Although they ceased using the line after being alerted, none of their articles were retracted or labelled with alerts.”

    From The history, landscape, and outlook of human cell line authentication and security (2024) · cites this paper as [2]

    In “One Laboratory’s Use of Intestine 407 [HeLa] Leads to 1212 Citations” (page unavailable), the paper says Lab X published 37 of 1,397 Intestine 407 articles (2.65%)—not 2.65% of HEp-2 work. The same section says the lab stopped publishing with Intestine 407 after being alerted and that the authors found no retractions, corrigenda, or letters of concern for those articles in PubMed or PubPeer. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The lab's publications received an average of 32.7 citations each, meaning that 45,682 papers were built upon their incorrect information.

    “The lab's publications received an average of 32.7 citations each, meaning that 45,682 papers were built upon their incorrect information [2].”

    From The history, landscape, and outlook of human cell line authentication and security (2024) · cites this paper as [2]

    The section “One Laboratory’s Use of Intestine 407 [HeLa] Leads to 1212 Citations” reports that Lab X’s publications averaged 32.7 citations each. It derives 45,682 by applying that average to all 1,397 publications using the cell line—not to Lab X’s publications alone—and describes the result as a possible number of citations to reports of questionable significance, not a count of papers built on incorrect information. (LLM, conf=0.94)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In 2021, Korch and Capes-Davis evaluated the research and economic impacts of CCCM by focusing on the HEp-2 and INT407 cell lines.

    “In 2021, Korch and Capes-Davis evaluated the research and economic impacts of CCCM by focusing on the HEp-2 and INT407 cell lines [2].”
  • HEp-2 and INT407 were used in 8497 articles and 1397 articles, respectively.

    “These lines, known to be misidentified since the 1960s, were used in 8497 articles published on HEp-2 and 1397 articles on INT407.”

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

4 of the 59 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Simopoulos, C.; Gaffen, J. D.; Bennett, A. Reply. Gut 1989, 30, 1798.
  2. Fennell, R. H., Jr. Exfoliative Cytology as a Tool in Tissue Culture. Anat. Rec. 1956, 124, 486.
  3. Leighton, J.; Kline, I.; Belkin, M.; et al. Some Histologic Features of Human "Normal" and "Cancer" Cell Strains in Sponge Matrix Tissue Culture. Anat. Rec. 1956, 124, 492.
  4. H.Ep. #2; H.Ep. #3; and H.Emb.Rh. #1. Cancer Res. 1954, 14, 660-666.
  5. Capes-Davis, A.; Freshney, R. I. Freshney's Culture of Animal Cells: A Manual of Basic Technique and Specialized Applications. 8th Ed. Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, 2021.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Korch, C. T., & Capes-Davis, A.
Affiliations
University of Colorado Anschutz (US)
Corresponding author
Korch, Christopher T.
Venue
SLAS Discovery
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-12
Volume
26
Issue
10
Pages
1268-1279
ISSN
2472-5552 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3208168144
Cited by
23
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1
FWCI
2.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • SLAS DISCOVERY (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Research Data Management Practices
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal testing and alternatives
Keywords
cell line misidentification, cross-contamination, HeLa, cervical cancer cell lines, laryngeal cancer, research reproducibility, research funding, cell line authentication
MeSH terms
HeLa Cells, Humans, Intestines, Prospective Studies, Retrospective Studies, Biomedical Research, Cell Line, Tumor, Drug Discovery

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