Cell Biology and Toxicology

, Volume 23, Issue 6, pp 367–372 | Cite as

Eradication of cross-contaminated cell lines: A call for action



This “white paper” was prepared and widely disseminated in an attempt to sound an alarm about the long-term existence of a grave, unresolved and growing problem that affects a significant portion of biomedical research, namely, the use of misidentified and cross-contaminated cell cultures. The “white paper” shows how bold action could bring about a profession-wide change in practice that would prevent further erosion. Misidentification and inter- and intra-specific cross-contamination of mammalian cell cultures used in research continues as a widespread problem despite an awareness that dates back more than 45 years. Awareness of the problem has led to a good understanding of the causes of cross-contamination and appropriate preventive measures. It has also led to the application of robust methods for the authentication of cell lines. Yet the problem continues unabated. Estimates of the incidence of research papers flawed by the use of misidentified and cross-contaminated cell cultures approximate 15–20%. The gravity of the situation calls for a strategy that would deliver a remedial message of authentication to virtually all cell culture researchers and also ensure compliance with the message. At the core of the strategy proposed herein is having cell line authentication as a condition for the award of research grants and for the publication of research findings.


Cross-contaminated cell lines Misidentification Compliance Authentication 


  1. Bar W, Brinkmann B, Budowle B, et al. DNA recommendations. Further report of the DNA Commission of the ISFH regarding the use of short tandem repeat systems. International Society for Forensic Haemogenetics. Int J Legal Med 1997;110:175–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brand K, Syverton JT. Results of species-specific hemagglutination tests on transformed, non-transformed, and primary cell cultures. J Natl Cancer Inst 1962;25:147–57.Google Scholar
  3. Buehring GC, Eby EA, Eby MJ. Cell line cross-contamination: how aware are mammalian cell culturists of the problem and how to monitor it? In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Anim 2004; 40(7):211–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chatterjee R. Cases of mistaken identity. Science 2007;315:928–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Coble MD, Just RS, O’Callaghan JE, et al. Single nucleotide polymorphisms over the entire mtDNA genome that increase the power of forensic testing in Caucasians. Int. J Legal Med 2004;118:137–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Culliton BJ. HeLa cells contaminating cultures around the world. Science 1974;184:1059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Defendi V, Billingham RE, Silvers WK, Moorhead P. Immunological and karyological criteria for identification of cell lines. J Natl Cancer Inst 1960;25:359–85.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Dickson D. Contaminated cell cultures. Nature 1981;289:227.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dirks WG, Drexler HG. Authentication of cancer cell lines by DNA fingerprinting. Methods Mol Med 2004;88:43–55.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Drexler HG, Dirks WG, MacLeod RA. False human hematopoietic cell lines: cross-contaminations and misinterpretations. Leukemia 1999;13(10):1601–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Drexler HG, Dirks WG, Matsuo Y, MacLeod RA. False leukemia-lymphoma cell lines: an update on over 500 cell lines. Leukemia 2003;17:416–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gartler SM. Genetic markers as tracers in cell culture. NCI Monograph 26: Second Decennial Review Conference on Cell, Tissue, and Organ Culture. NCI; 1967.Google Scholar
  13. Gartler SM. Apparent HeLa cell contamination of human heteroploid cell lines. Nature 1968;217:750–1.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gey GO. Some aspects of the constitution and behavior of normal and malignant cells maintained in continuous culture. The Harvey Lectures: Series L (1954–1955). New York: The Harvey Society; 1955.Google Scholar
  15. Gilbert DA, Reid YA, Gail MH, et al. Application of DNA fingerprints for cell-line individualization. Am J Hum Genet 1990;47:499–514.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Gill P, Brinkmann B, d’Aloja E, et al. Considerations from the European DNA profiling group (EDNAP) concerning STR nomenclature. Forensic Sci Int 1997;87:185–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harris N, Gang D, Quay S, et al. Contamination of Hodgkin’s disease cell cultures. Nature 1981;289:228–230.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kniss DA, Xie Y, Li Y, et al. ED(27) trophoblast-like cells isolated from first-trimester chorionic villi are genetically identical to HeLa cells yet exhibit a distinct phenotype. Placenta 2002;23(1):32–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lavappa KS. Survey of ATCC stocks of human cell lines for HeLa contamination. In Vitro. 1978;14(5):469–75.Google Scholar
  20. Lee JY, Lee CH, Shim SH, et al. Molecular cytogenetic analysis of the monoblastic cell line U937. Karyotype clarification by G-banding, whole chromosome painting, microdissection and reverse painting, and comparative genomic hybridization. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 2002; 137:124–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Liscovitch M, Ravid D. A case study in misidentification of cancer cell lines: MCF-7/AdrR cells (re-designated NCI/ADR/RES) are derived from OVCAR-8 human ovarian carcinoma cells. Cancer Lett 2006 Feb. 24.Google Scholar
  22. MacLeod RA, Dirks WG, Matsuo Y, Kaufmann M, Milch H, Drexler HG. Widespread intraspecies cross-contamination of human tumor cell lines arising at source. Int J Cancer 1999;83(4):555–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Masters JR. HeLa cells 50 years on: the good, the bad and the ugly. Nat Rev Cancer 2002;2:315–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Masters JR. DNA profiling and the authentication of cell lines. In Vitro Cell Develop Biol 2005;41:6A. [Abstract].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Masters JRW, Bedford P, Kearney A, Povey S, Franks LM. Bladder cancer cell-line cross-contamination: identification using a specific locus-specific minisatellite probe. Br J Cancer 1988;57:284–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Masters JR, Thomson JA, Daly-Burns B, et al. Short tandem repeat profiling provides an international reference standard for human cell lines. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2001;98:8012–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Melcher R, Maisch K, Koehler S, et al. SKY and genetic fingerprinting reveal a cross-contamination of the putative normal colon epithelial cell line NCOL-1. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 2005;151(1):84–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Milanesi E, Ajmone-Marsan Bignotti Losio MN, Bernardi Jo Chegdani F, Sorcini M, Ferrari M. Molecular detection of cell line cross-contaminations using amplified fragment length polymorphism DNA fingerprinting technology. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Anim. 2003;39:124–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Muller S, Eder V, Wienberg J. A nonredundant multicolor bar code as a screening tool for rearrangements in neoplasia. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 2004;39:59–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nelson-Rees W, Flandermeyer R. Inter-and intra-species contamination of human breast tumor cell lines HBC and Br Ca5 and other cell cultures. Science. 1977;195:1343–4.Google Scholar
  31. Nelson-Rees W, Flandermeyer R, Hawthorne P. Banded marker chromosomes as indicators of intraspecies cellular contamination. Science 1974;184:1093–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nelson-Rees WA, Daniels DW, Flandermeyer RR. Cross-contamination of cells in culture [Review]. Science 1981;212(4493):446–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. O’Brien SJ. Cell culture forensics. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2001;98:7656–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. O’Brien SJ, Kleiner G, Olson R, Shannon JE. Enzyme polymorphisms as genetic signatures in human cell cultures. Science 1977;195:1345–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ogura H, Fujii R, Hamano M, et al. Detection of HeLa cell contamination-presence of human papillomavirus 18 DNA as HeLa marker in JTC-3, OG and OE cell lines. Jpn J Med Sci Biol 1997;50(4–5):161–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Parson W, Kirchebner R, Muhlmann R, et al. Cancer cell line identification by short tandem repeat profiling: power and limitations. The FASEB Journal. 2005. Express article 10.1096/fj.04–3062fje.Google Scholar
  37. Rothfels KK, Axelrod A, Siminovitch L, McCullogh E, Parker RC. The origin of altered cell lines from mouse, monkey, and man, as indidcated by chromosome and transplantation studies. In: Berg RW, editor. Proc. 3rd Canadian cancer research conference, 1959. New York: Academic Press; 1959. p. 89–214.Google Scholar
  38. Satoh M, Takeuchi M. Cross-contamination of cell lines as revealed by DNA fingerprinting in the IFO animal cell bank. Res Commun Inst Ferment 1993;16:18–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Stacey GN, Bolton BJ, Doyle A. DNA fingerprinting transforms the art of cell authentication. Nature (Lond.) 1992;357:261–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Steube KG, Meyer C, Uphoff CC, Drexler HG. A simple method using beta-globin polymerase chain reaction for the species identification of animal cell lines-a progress report. InVitro Cell Dev Biol Anim 2003;39(10):468–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. van Helden PD, Wiid IJ, Abrecht CF, Theron E, Thornley AL, Hoal-van Helden EG. Cross-contamination of human esophageal squamous carcinoma cell lines detected by DNA fingerprint analysis. Cancer Res 1988;48(20):5660–2.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Biology DepartmentCatholic University of AmericaWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations