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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.