4.6 Article

Hiding in Plain View: Genetic Profiling Reveals Decades Old Cross Contamination of Bladder Cancer Cell Line KU7 with HeLa

期刊

JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
卷 190, 期 4, 页码 1404-1409

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2013.03.009

关键词

urinary bladder; urothelium; carcinoma; HeLa cells; DNA contamination

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [P50 CA091846] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: KU7 is a popular urothelial carcinoma cell line that was isolated from the bladder of a patient at Keio University in 1980. It has subsequently been widely used in laboratories around the world. We describe how routine cell line authentication revealed that KU7 was cross contaminated almost 30 years ago with HeLa, a cervical carcinoma cell line. Materials and Methods: Presumed KU7 clones dating from 1984 to 1999 were provided by M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Vancouver Prostate Centre, Kyoto University, Tokyo Medical University and Keio University. HeLa was obtained from ATCC (R). Genomic DNA was isolated and short tandem repeat analysis was performed at the M. D. Anderson Cancer Center Characterized Cell Line Core Facility, Johns Hopkins University Fragment Analysis Facility and RIKEN BioResource Center, Ibaraki, Japan. Comparative genomic hybridization was performed on a platform (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, California) at Vancouver Prostate Centre. Results: The short tandem repeat profile of all KU7 clones was an exact match with that of HeLa. Comparative genomic hybridization of all samples revealed an abundance of shared chromosomal aberrations. Slight differences in some genomic areas were explained by genomic drift in different KU7 clones separated by many years. Conclusions: Our analysis identified that cross contamination of KU7 with HeLa occurred before 1984 at the source institution. All KU7 clones in the urological literature should be considered HeLa and experimental results should be viewed in this light. Our results emphasize the need to authenticate cell lines in oncological research.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据