Authentication of M14 melanoma cell line proves misidentification of MDA-MB-435 breast cancer cell line.

A variety of analytical approaches have indicated that melanoma cell line UCLA-SO-M14 (M14) and breast carcinoma cell line MDA-MB-435 originate from a common donor. This indicates that at some point in the past, one of these cell lines became misidentified, meaning that it ceased to correspond to the reported donor and instead became falsely identified (through cross-contamination or other means) as a cell line from a different donor. Initial studies concluded that MDA-MB-435 was the misidentified cell line and M14 was the authentic cell line, although contradictory evidence has been published, resulting in further confusion. To address this question, we obtained early samples of the melanoma cell line (M14), a lymphoblastoid cell line from the same donor (ML14), and donor serum preserved at the originator's institution. M14 samples were cryopreserved in December 1975, before MDA-MB-435 cells were established in culture. Through a series of molecular characterizations, including short tandem repeat (STR) profiling and cytogenetic analysis, we demonstrated that later samples of M14 and MDA-MB-435 correspond to samples of M14 frozen in 1975, to the lymphoblastoid cell line ML14, and to the melanoma donor's STR profile, sex and blood type. This work demonstrates conclusively that M14 is the authentic cell line and MDA-MB-435 is misidentified. With clear provenance information and authentication testing of early samples, it is possible to resolve debates regarding the origins of problematic cell lines that are widely used in cancer research.

Best practices for naming, receiving, and managing cells in culture.

One of the first considerations in using an existing cell line or establishing a new a cell line is the detailed proactive planning of all phases of the cell line management. It is necessary to have a well-trained practitioner in best practices in cell culture who has experience in receiving a new cell line into the laboratory, the correct and appropriate use of a cell line name, the preparation of cell banks, microscopic observation of cells in culture, growth optimization, cell count, cell subcultivation, as well as detailed protocols on how to expand and store cells. Indeed, the practitioner should best manage all activities of cell culture by ensuring that the appropriate certified facilities, equipment, and validated supplies and reagents are in place.

Best practices in cell culture: an overview.

This overview describes a series of articles to provide an unmet need for information on best practices in animal cell culture. The target audience primarily consists of entry-level scientists with minimal experience in cell culture. It also include scientists, journalists, and educators with some experience in cell culture, but in need of a refresher in best practices. The articles will be published in this journal over a six-month period and will emphasize best practices in: (1) media selection; (2) use and evaluation of animal serum as a component of cell culture medium; (3) receipt of new cells into the laboratory; (4) naming cell lines; (5) authenticating cell line identity; (6) detecting and mitigating risk of cell culture contamination; (7) cryopreservation and thawing of cells; and (8) storing and shipping viable cells.

Match criteria for human cell line authentication: where do we draw the line?

Continuous human cell lines have been used extensively as models for biomedical research. In working with these cell lines, researchers are often unaware of the risk of cross-contamination and other causes of misidentification. To reduce this risk, there is a pressing need to authenticate cell lines, comparing the sample handled in the laboratory to a previously tested sample. The American Type Culture Collection Standards Development Organization Workgroup ASN-0002 has developed a Standard for human cell line authentication, recommending short tandem repeat (STR) profiling for authentication of human cell lines. However, there are known limitations to the technique when applied to cultured samples, including possible genetic drift with passage. In our study, a dataset of 2,279 STR profiles from four cell banks was used to assess the effectiveness of the match criteria recommended within the Standard. Of these 2,279 STR profiles, 1,157 were grouped into sets of related cell lines-duplicate holdings, legitimately related samples or misidentified cell lines. Eight core STR loci plus amelogenin were used to unequivocally authenticate 98% of these related sets. Two simple match algorithms each clearly discriminated between related and unrelated samples, with separation between related samples at ≥80% match and unrelated samples at <50% match. A small degree of overlap was noted at 50-79% match, mostly from cell lines known to display variable STR profiles. These match criteria are recommended as a simple and effective way to interpret results from STR profiling of human cell lines.

Characterization and authentication of cancer cell lines: an overview.

Studies of the same cell lines by different laboratories are common in the literature and often show different results with the same methodology. Use of best cell culture practices is essential to ensure consistent and reproducible results. Assay outcomes are easily influenced by many factors including changes in functionality, morphology, doubling time of cells, passage numbers, microbial contamination, and misidentification of cells. Simple observation, monitoring, and documentation of cell morphology and behavior, including growth rates, provide early warning and should be standard practice. Changes may indicate microbial contamination, genotypic drift due to high passage number, or cross-contamination with another cell line. Rapid molecular methods allow the identification of microbial and cross-contamination. Increasingly, authentication of cell lines is a prerequisite for scientific publication to avoid erroneous results entering the literature.

Recommendation of short tandem repeat profiling for authenticating human cell lines, stem cells, and tissues.

Cell misidentification and cross-contamination have plagued biomedical research for as long as cells have been employed as research tools. Examples of misidentified cell lines continue to surface to this day. Efforts to eradicate the problem by raising awareness of the issue and by asking scientists voluntarily to take appropriate actions have not been successful. Unambiguous cell authentication is an essential step in the scientific process and should be an inherent consideration during peer review of papers submitted for publication or during review of grants submitted for funding. In order to facilitate proper identity testing, accurate, reliable, inexpensive, and standardized methods for authentication of cells and cell lines must be made available. To this end, an international team of scientists is, at this time, preparing a consensus standard on the authentication of human cells using short tandem repeat (STR) profiling. This standard, which will be submitted for review and approval as an American National Standard by the American National Standards Institute, will provide investigators guidance on the use of STR profiling for authenticating human cell lines. Such guidance will include methodological detail on the preparation of the DNA sample, the appropriate numbers and types of loci to be evaluated, and the interpretation and quality control of the results. Associated with the standard itself will be the establishment and maintenance of a public STR profile database under the auspices of the National Center for Biotechnology Information. The consensus standard is anticipated to be adopted by granting agencies and scientific journals as appropriate methodology for authenticating human cell lines, stem cells, and tissues.

Check your cultures! A list of cross-contaminated or misidentified cell lines.

Continuous cell lines consist of cultured cells derived from a specific donor and tissue of origin that have acquired the ability to proliferate indefinitely. These cell lines are well-recognized models for the study of health and disease, particularly for cancer. However, there are cautions to be aware of when using continuous cell lines, including the possibility of contamination, in which a foreign cell line or microorganism is introduced without the handler's knowledge. Cross-contamination, in which the contaminant is another cell line, was first recognized in the 1950s but, disturbingly, remains a serious issue today. Many cell lines become cross-contaminated early, so that subsequent experimental work has been performed only on the contaminant, masquerading under a different name. What can be done in response-how can a researcher know if their own cell lines are cross-contaminated? Two practical responses are suggested here. First, it is important to check the literature, looking for previous work on cross-contamination. Some reports may be difficult to find and to make these more accessible, we have compiled a list of known cross-contaminated cell lines. The list currently contains 360 cell lines, drawn from 68 references. Most contaminants arise within the same species, with HeLa still the most frequently encountered (29%, 106/360) among human cell lines, but interspecies contaminants account for a small but substantial minority of cases (9%, 33/360). Second, even if there are no previous publications on cross-contamination for that cell line, it is essential to check the sample itself by performing authentication testing.

Establishment and characterization of a human primary prostate carcinoma cell line, HH870.

BACKGROUND: Development of new therapeutic modalities for human prostate carcinoma has been impeded by a lack of adequate in vitro and in vivo models. Most in vitro studies have been carried out using a limited number of human prostate cancer cell lines that are mostly derived from metastatic tumors sites or are immortalized. METHODS: Characterization of the prostate cancer cell line, HH870, included description of morphology, determination of doubling time, response to androgens, immunocytochemistry, and immunoblotting of proteins known to be associated with prostate carcinoma, karyotyping, fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), DNA profiling, and growth as xenograft in athymic rodents. RESULTS: HH870 expresses various epithelial marker antigens that correlate with known basic immunostaining profiles of prostate adenocarcinoma, although the cell line does not express PSA, PSMA, or PAP. HH870 exhibits complex chromosomal abnormalities and harbors no immortalizing HPV, BKV, JCV, and SV40 DNA. CONCLUSIONS: We report the successful establishment and characterization of a new long-term primary human prostate tumor cell line HH870.