Cited by 31Cancer Genomics and DiagnosticsComputational Drug Discovery MethodsCancer Cells and Metastasis

Computational estimation of quality and clinical relevance of cancer cell lines

Open access
Trastulla, Lucia, Noorbakhsh, Javad, Vazquez, Francisca, McFarland, James, Iorio, Francesco·2022·Molecular Systems Biology

Abstract

Immortal cancer cell lines (CCLs) are the most widely used system for investigating cancer biology and for the preclinical development of oncology therapies. Pharmacogenomic and genome‐wide editing screenings have facilitated the discovery of clinically relevant gene–drug interactions and novel therapeutic targets via large panels of extensively characterised CCLs. However, tailoring pharmacological strategies in a precision medicine context requires bridging the existing gaps between tumours and in vitro models. Indeed, intrinsic limitations of CCLs such as misidentification, the absence of tumour microenvironment and genetic drift have highlighted the need to identify the most faithful CCLs for each primary tumour while addressing their heterogeneity, with the development of new models where necessary. Here, we discuss the most significant limitations of CCLs in representing patient features, and we review computational methods aiming at systematically evaluating the suitability of CCLs as tumour proxies and identifying the best patient representative in vitro models. Additionally, we provide an overview of the applications of these methods to more complex models and discuss future machine‐learning‐based directions that could resolve some of the arising discrepancies.

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 · 10.15252/msb.202211017

Cites

177 of 177 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?

  • Immortalized cell lines typically retain similarity to their progenitors in culture, including some level of clonal heterogeneity, but they develop genetic instability and frequent aneuploidy.

    “Immortalized cell lines typically retain similarity to their progenitors in culture, including some level of clonal heterogeneity, but they develop genetic instability and frequent aneuploidy [25][26][27].”

    From The history, landscape, and outlook of human cell line authentication and security (2024) · cites this paper as [25]

    The ‘Heterogeneity in tumours and cell lines’ section reports subclonal diversity in cancer cell lines, including heterogeneity that re-emerges after single-cell cloning. The ‘Genetic drift, in vitro selection pressures and genetic instability’ section describes genetic instability and divergence from tumours of origin. Our copy does not establish that immortalized cell lines typically retain similarity to their progenitors or that aneuploidy is frequent; its discussion is focused on cancer cell lines. No page numbers are available in the indexed passages. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • STR profiling is the gold standard and authentication standard for cell line authentication.

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

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

3 of the 180 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Trastulla, L., Noorbakhsh, J., Vazquez, F., McFarland, J., & Iorio, F.
Affiliations
  • Open Targets (GB)
  • Broad Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Iorio, Francesco
Venue
Molecular Systems Biology
Published
2022-07-01
Volume
18
Issue
7
Pages
e11017-e11017
ISSN
1744-4292 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4285401241
Cited by
31
References
180
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 2
FWCI
0.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Molecular Systems Biology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Dependency Map Consortium
  • Open Targets Consortium (OTAR2‐055)
  • Wellcome Trust (206194/Z/17/Z)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Cancer Genomics and Diagnostics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer Cells and Metastasis
Keywords
cancer cell lines, clinical relevance, tumor models, cell line misidentification, tumor microenvironment, genetic drift, precision oncology, in vitro model, machine learning, drug-gene interactions, therapeutic target, tumor heterogeneity
MeSH terms
Gene Editing, Humans, Neoplasms, Cell Line, Tumor, Precision Medicine, Tumor Microenvironment

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