The Culture of Cell Culture Practices and Authentication—Results from a 2015 Survey

Freedman, Leonard P.; Gibson, Mark C.; Wisman, Rosann; Ethier, Stephen P.; Soule, Howard R.; Reid, Yvonne; Neve, Richard M.

doi:10.2144/000114344

Cited by 28 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Even without contamination, genetic changes occur in cells through repeated culturing and experimentation, a process known as cell line drift. Despite these known problems, periodic cell line authentication and infection testing are not universally-practiced in preclinical research even though a human cell authentication standard exists 29, 30 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reproducibility2020: Progress and priorities

Freedman¹,

Venugopalan

Wisman³

2017

F1000Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The preclinical research process is a cycle of idea generation, experimentation, and reporting of results. The biomedical research community relies on the reproducibility of published discoveries to create new lines of research and to translate research findings into therapeutic applications. Since 2012, when scientists from Amgen reported that they were able to reproduce only 6 of 53 “landmark” preclinical studies, the biomedical research community began discussing the scale of the reproducibility problem and developing initiatives to address critical challenges. Global Biological Standards Institute (GBSI) released the “Case for Standards” in 2013, one of the first comprehensive reports to address the rising concern of irreproducible biomedical research. Further attention was drawn to issues that limit scientific self-correction, including reporting and publication bias, underpowered studies, lack of open access to methods and data, and lack of clearly defined standards and guidelines in areas such as reagent validation. To evaluate the progress made towards reproducibility since 2013, GBSI identified and examined initiatives designed to advance quality and reproducibility. Through this process, we identified key roles for funders, journals, researchers and other stakeholders and recommended actions for future progress. This paper describes our findings and conclusions.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reproducibility2020: Progress and priorities

Freedman¹,

Venugopalan

Wisman³

2017

F1000Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…• Table 6 highlights the issues to consider in NPCT decision-making. Good practices to enhance the replicability of vertebrate cell culture-based assays have been described elsewhere, 38,39,41 as have recommendations for the use of antibodies. Good practices in proceeding from other starting points are discussed below.…”

Section: Focus and Objectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving natural product research translation: From source to clinical trial

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While great interest in health effects of natural product (NP) including dietary supplements and foods persists, promising preclinical NP research is not consistently translating into actionable clinical trial (CT) outcomes. Generally considered the gold standard for assessing safety and efficacy, CTs, especially phase III CTs, are costly and require rigorous planning to optimize the value of the information obtained. More effective bridging from NP research to CT was the goal of a Septe mber, 2018 trans disci plina ry workshop. Participants emphasized that replicability and likelihood of successful translation depend on rigor in experimental design, interpretation, and reporting across the continuum of NP research. Discussions spanned good practices for NP characterization and quality control; use and interpretation of models (computational through in vivo) with strong clinical predictive validity; controls for experimental artefacts, especially for in vitro interrogation of bioactivity and mechanisms of action; rigorous assessment and interpretation of prior research; transparency in all reporting; and prioritization of research questions. Natural product clinical trials prioritized based on rigorous, convergent supporting data and current public health needs are most likely to be informative and ultimately affect public health. Thoughtful, coordinated implementation of these practices should enhance the knowledge gained from future NP research. K E Y W O R D S clinical predictive validity, dietary supplements, model systems, rigor and replicability, value of information | 43 SORKIN et al.still provide invaluable guidance, the results of such trials are often met with concerns that different design choiceswhether of product, dose, timing, participant eligibility criteria, outcomes, etc.-might have yielded a substantially different result. Each interventional trial represents a substantial investment, with well-powered Phase III CTs typically consuming more than $10 million and many person-years. 9,10 Additionally, as time and funds are limited, and participant pools may also be constrained, a decision to invest in a CT often precludes pursuing other research questions, 11 which may provide more useful public health-relevant knowledge than an RCT with an insufficient evidence base.

show abstract

“…Cell lines of mammalian origin are now available from almost all tissues, but genotypic and phenotypic changes have been described to occur in most of them over time (passage). Different laboratories may have no or different quality control procedures and hence the same cell lines may differ significantly [23]. The authentication and purity of cell lines are often undervalued by many researchers, who are frequently not aware of specific standards and guidelines ([9] and http://iclac.org/databases/cross-contaminations/).…”

Section: Guidelines Standards and Reproducibility Of Scientific Datmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Funding agencies and scientific journals are increasingly requesting authors for proofs of cell line authentication ([21]). Adherence to standardized terminology in the naming of cell lines is explicitly requested to journals and consequently to the authors [23]. …”

Section: Guidelines Standards and Reproducibility Of Scientific Datmentioning

confidence: 99%

Propelling the paradigm shift from reductionism to systems nutrition

Kaput

Perozzi²,

Radonjić³

et al. 2017

Genes Nutr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The complex physiology of living organisms represents a challenge for mechanistic understanding of the action of dietary bioactives in the human body and of their possible role in health and disease. Animal, cell, and microbial models have been extensively used to address questions that could not be pursued experimentally in humans, posing an additional level of complexity in translation of the results to healthy and diseased metabolism. The past few decades have witnessed a surge in development of increasingly sensitive molecular techniques and bioinformatic tools for storing, managing, and analyzing increasingly large datasets. Application of such powerful means to molecular nutrition research led to a major leap in study designs and experimental approaches yielding experimental data connecting dietary components to human health. Scientific journals bear major responsibilities in the advancement of science. As primary actors of dissemination to the scientific community, journals can impose rigid criteria for publishing only sound, reliable, and reproducible data. Journal policies are meant to guide potential authors to adopt the most updated standardization guidelines and shared best practices. Such policies evolve in parallel with the evolution of novel approaches and emerging challenges and therefore require constant updating. We highlight in this manuscript the major scientific issues that led to formulating new, updated journal policies for Genes & Nutrition, a journal which targets the growing field of nutritional systems biology interfacing personalized nutrition and preventive medicine, with the ultimate goal of promoting health and preventing or treating disease. We focus here on relevant issues requiring standardization in nutrition research. We also introduce new sections on human genetic variation and nutritional bioinformatics which follow the evolution of nutritional science into the twenty-first century.

show abstract

The Culture of Cell Culture Practices and Authentication—Results from a 2015 Survey

Cited by 28 publications

References 17 publications

Reproducibility2020: Progress and priorities

Reproducibility2020: Progress and priorities

Improving natural product research translation: From source to clinical trial

Propelling the paradigm shift from reductionism to systems nutrition

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About