4.6 Article

DNA fingerprinting of glioma cell lines and considerations on similarity measurements

期刊

NEURO-ONCOLOGY
卷 14, 期 6, 页码 701-711

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/neuonc/nos072

关键词

glioblastoma cell lines; misidentification; similarity score; STR fingerprint

资金

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation
  2. OncoSuisse

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Glioma cell lines are an important tool for research in basic and translational neuro-oncology. Documentation of their genetic identity has become a requirement for scientific journals and grant applications to exclude cross-contamination and misidentification that lead to misinterpretation of results. Here, we report the standard 16 marker short tandem repeat (SIR) DNA fingerprints for a panel of 39 widely used glioma cell lines as reference. Comparison of the fingerprints among themselves and with the large DSMZ database comprising 9 marker STRs for 2278 cell lines uncovered 3 misidentified cell lines and confirmed previously known cross-contaminations. Furthermore, 2 glioma cell lines exhibited identity scores of 0.8, which is proposed as the cutoff for detecting cross-contamination. Additional characteristics, comprising lack of a B-raf mutation in one line and a similarity score of 1 with the original tumor tissue in the other, excluded a cross-contamination. Subsequent simulation procedures suggested that, when using DNA fingerprints comprising only 9 SIR markers, the commonly used similarity score of 0.8 is not sufficiently stringent to unambiguously differentiate the origin. DNA fingerprints are confounded by frequent genetic alterations in cancer cell lines, particularly loss of heterozygosity, that reduce the informativeness of SIR markers and, thereby, the overall power for distinction. The similarity score depends on the number of markers measured; thus, more markers or additional cell line characteristics, such as information on specific mutations, may be necessary to clarify the origin.

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