4.6 Review

Human rhabdomyosarcoma cell lines for rhabdomyosarcoma research: utility and pitfalls

Journal

FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY
Volume 3, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2013.00183

Keywords

alveolar; embryonal; human cell line; rhabdomyosarcoma; xenograft

Categories

Funding

  1. Pfizer Oncology Clinical Fellowship
  2. Hartwell Foundation
  3. Intramural Research Program of the NCI
  4. Liddy Shriver Sarcoma Initiative and NCI [R01-CA122706]
  5. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [ZIABC011378, ZIABC011423] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) is the most common soft tissue sarcoma of childhood and adolescence. Despite intergroup clinical trials conducted in Europe and North America, outcomes for high risk patients with this disease have not significantly improved in the last several decades, and survival of metastatic or relapsed disease remains extremely poor. Accrual into new clinical trials is slow and difficult, so in vitro cell-line research and in vivo xenograft models present an attractive alternative for preclinical research for this cancer type. Currently, 30 commonly used human RMS cell lines exist, with differing origins, karyotypes, histologies, and methods of validation. Selecting an appropriate cell line for RMS research has important implications for outcomes. There are also potential pitfalls in using certain cell lines including contamination with murine stromal cells, cross-contamination between cell lines, discordance between the cell line and its associated original tumor, imposter cell lines, and nomenclature errors that result in the circulation of two or more presumed unique cell lines that are actually from the same origin. These pitfalls can be avoided by testing for species-specific isoenzymes, microarray analysis, assays for subtype-specific fusion products, and short tandem repeat analysis.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available