4.4 Article

Molecular Characterization of Commonly Used Cell Lines for Bone Tumor Research: A Trans-European EuroBoNet Effort

Journal

GENES CHROMOSOMES & CANCER
Volume 49, Issue 1, Pages 40-51

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/gcc.20717

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. European Commission

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Usage of cancer cell lines has repeatedly generated conflicting results provoked by differences among subdones or contamination with mycoplasm or other immortal mammalian cells. To overcome these limitations, we decided within the EuroBoNeT consortium to characterize a common set of cell lines including osteosarcomas (OS), Ewing sarcomas (ES), and chondrosarcomas (CS). DNA fingerprinting was used to guarantee the identity of all of the cell lines and to distinguish subdones of osteosarcoma cell line HOS. Screening for homozygous loss of 38 tumor suppressor genes by MLPA revealed deletion of CDKN2A as the most common event (15/36), strictly associated with absence of the CDKN2A (p 16) protein. Ten cell lines showed missense mutations of the TPS3 gene while another set of nine cell lines showed mutations resulting in truncation of the TP53 protein. Cells harboring missense mutations expressed high levels of nuclear TP53, while cell lines with nonsense mutations showed weak/absent staining for TP53. TP53(wt) cell lines usually expressed the protein in 2-10% of the cells. However, seven TP53(wt) osteosarcomas were negative for both mRNA and protein expression. Our analyses shed light on the correlation between immunohistochemical and genetic data for CDKN2A and TP53, and confirm the importance of these signaling pathways. The characterization of a substantial number of cell lines represents an important step to supply research groups with proven models for further advanced studies on tumor biology and may help to make results from different laboratories more comparable. (C) 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available