There may be hundreds of papers out there reporting on experimental results in cell lines that do not actually exist.

Reese Richardson

A cell line is a population of cells that can be grown in a laboratory
culture indefinitely. Cell lines are an essential tool for biomedical
research because they allow biological experiments to be performed *in
vitro* (i.e. outside of a living organism). For instance, researchers
developing new cancer drugs will certainly test the effect of their drug
candidates on many different cancer cell lines before ever considering
testing the drug candidate on live animals, let alone human patients.

<figure class="wp-block-image size-large">
<img
src="https://reeserichardson.blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/0-1.jpg?w=512"
class="wp-image-115" data-attachment-id="115"
data-permalink="https://reeserichardson.blog/2024/03/14/non-verifiable-cell-lines-immortal-or-imaginary/0-1/"
data-orig-file="https://reeserichardson.blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/0-1.jpg"
data-orig-size="512,276" data-comments-opened="1" data-image-meta="{"
aperture":"0","credit":"","camera":"","caption":"","created_timestamp":"0","copyright":"","focal_length":"0","iso":"0","shutter_speed":"0","title":"","orientation":"0"}"=""
data-image-title="0-1" data-image-description="" data-image-caption=""
data-medium-file="https://reeserichardson.blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/0-1.jpg?w=300"
data-large-file="https://reeserichardson.blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/0-1.jpg?w=512"
tabindex="0" role="button" loading="lazy"
srcset="https://reeserichardson.blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/0-1.jpg 512w, https://reeserichardson.blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/0-1.jpg?w=150 150w, https://reeserichardson.blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/0-1.jpg?w=300 300w"
sizes="(max-width: 512px) 100vw, 512px" width="512" height="276"
alt="SAOS2 cells" />
<figcaption>Fluorescence microscope image of <a
href="https://www.cellosaurus.org/CVCL_0548">SAOS2</a>, a cell line
derived from the bone tissue of an 11-year-old osteosarcoma patient.
Image from the <a href="https://doi.org/10.7295/W9CIL9068">Cell Image
Library.</a></figcaption>
</figure>

Because cell lines can grow indefinitely, one research laboratory or
laboratory supplier can take a few cells from their cell line stock and
give them to another laboratory for that laboratory to begin culturing
their own stock. By far the most popular cell line is
[HeLa](https://www.cellosaurus.org/CVCL_0030), and the many of thousands
of HeLa cell stocks used in biomedical research around the world can all
be traced back to the original stock of "immortal" cervical cancer cells
taken from [Henrietta Lacks in
1951](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrietta_Lacks).

One complication of relying on cell lines for biomedical research is
that stocks will often become cross-contaminated by other cell lines.
For instance, HeLa is extremely aggressive as cancer cell lines go and
HeLa cells will easily overtake other cell line stocks that are stored
nearby. The popular gastric cancer cell line
[BGC-823](https://www.cellosaurus.org/CVCL_3360) is one such victim of
HeLa's aggression; there are no remaining uncontaminated stocks of
BGC-823 and thus it is no longer considered an appropriate experimental
model for gastric cancer. The International Cell Line Authentication
Committee maintains [a register of misidentified cell
lines](https://iclac.org/databases/cross-contaminations/) that is
currently 582 entries long. A good number of these cell lines were
contaminated by cells from a completely different organism, such as
human salivary gland cell line
[CAC2](https://www.cellosaurus.org/CVCL_6883), which is actually made up
of unknown cells from a rat.

Because [different cell lines can have a wide variety of responses to
the same
treatment](https://www.cancerrxgene.org/compound/Paclitaxel/11/overview/ic50),
it is essential that researchers avoid misidentified cell lines and only
work with authenticated cell lines that actually represent their system
of interest.

<figure class="wp-block-image size-large">
<img
src="https://reeserichardson.blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/1.png?w=623"
class="wp-image-116" data-attachment-id="116"
data-permalink="https://reeserichardson.blog/2024/03/14/non-verifiable-cell-lines-immortal-or-imaginary/attachment/1/"
data-orig-file="https://reeserichardson.blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/1.png"
data-orig-size="623,293" data-comments-opened="1" data-image-meta="{"
aperture":"0","credit":"","camera":"","caption":"","created_timestamp":"0","copyright":"","focal_length":"0","iso":"0","shutter_speed":"0","title":"","orientation":"0"}"=""
data-image-title="1" data-image-description="" data-image-caption=""
data-medium-file="https://reeserichardson.blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/1.png?w=300"
data-large-file="https://reeserichardson.blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/1.png?w=623"
tabindex="0" role="button" loading="lazy"
srcset="https://reeserichardson.blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/1.png 623w, https://reeserichardson.blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/1.png?w=150 150w, https://reeserichardson.blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/1.png?w=300 300w"
sizes="(max-width: 623px) 100vw, 623px" width="623" height="293"
alt="Cellosaurus entry for BGC-823." />
<figcaption>The Cellosaurus entry for <a
href="https://www.cellosaurus.org/CVCL_3360">BGC-823</a> now warns about
the cell line being contaminated by HeLa.</figcaption>
</figure>

Thanks largely to the diligent work of Danielle Oste, [~~now available
on bioRxiv~~](https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.02.29.582220) \[UPDATE: May
16, 2024\] [now published in the *International Journal of
Cancer*](https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.34995), we can now report on a
whole new threat to biomedical research: cell lines that never existed
in the first place.

The names of cell lines are usually just a jumble of letters and numbers
and thus can often be easily confused. For instance, the name of BGC-823
is very similar to that of
[MGC-803](https://www.cellosaurus.org/CVCL_5334), another misidentified
gastric cancer cell line. One might easily misspell these cell lines as
"BGC-803" or "MGC-823". However, we noticed that sometimes these
misspelled identifiers were used to refer to another cell line entirely
distinct from these existing cell lines. Take the 2021 article ["Long
non-coding RNA KCNQ1OT1 promotes the progression of gastric cancer via
the miR-145-5p/ARF6 axis"](https://doi.org/10.1002/jgm.3330) in the
*Journal of Gene Medicine* (Wiley), which refers to experiments in cell
lines "BGC-803" and "BSG-823" in addition to experiments in the
contaminated cell lines BGC-823 and MGC-803.

<figure class="wp-block-image size-large">
<img
src="https://reeserichardson.blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/2.png?w=557"
class="wp-image-119" data-attachment-id="119"
data-permalink="https://reeserichardson.blog/2024/03/14/non-verifiable-cell-lines-immortal-or-imaginary/attachment/2/"
data-orig-file="https://reeserichardson.blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/2.png"
data-orig-size="557,478" data-comments-opened="1" data-image-meta="{"
aperture":"0","credit":"","camera":"","caption":"","created_timestamp":"0","copyright":"","focal_length":"0","iso":"0","shutter_speed":"0","title":"","orientation":"0"}"=""
data-image-title="2" data-image-description="" data-image-caption=""
data-medium-file="https://reeserichardson.blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/2.png?w=300"
data-large-file="https://reeserichardson.blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/2.png?w=557"
tabindex="0" role="button" loading="lazy" data-long=""
data-non-coding="" data-rna="" data-kcnq1ot1="" data-promotes=""
data-progression="" data-of="" data-gastric="" data-cancer=""
data-via="" data-the="" data-mir-145-5p="" data-arf6="" data-axis",=""
data-an="" data-article="" data-that="" data-used="" data-several=""
data-non-verifiable="" data-cell="" data-lines."=""
srcset="https://reeserichardson.blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/2.png 557w, https://reeserichardson.blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/2.png?w=150 150w, https://reeserichardson.blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/2.png?w=300 300w"
sizes="(max-width: 557px) 100vw, 557px" width="557" height="478"
alt="A graph from " />
<figcaption>Adapted from Figure 1 of <a
href="https://doi.org/10.1002/jgm.3330">“Long non-coding RNA KCNQ1OT1
promotes the progression of gastric cancer via the miR-145-5p/ARF6
axis”</a>. Existing non-contaminated cell lines are highlighted in blue,
existing contaminated cell lines are shown in orange, and non-verifiable
cell lines are shown in red.</figcaption>
</figure>

Hundreds of articles have referred to experiments in these cell lines
despite there being no indication that these cell lines actually
exist---there are no entries for these cell lines in any cell line
indices, they cannot be found in any supplier catalogs, there are no
articles describing how these cell lines were established, and no one
seems to have produced any genetic profiles of these cell lines to
confirm their identities. We identified eight such "miscellings":
BGC-803, BSG-803, BSG-823, GSE-1, HGC-7901, HGC-803, MGC-823 and TIE-3.
There are certainly many more non-verifiable cell lines out there.

Could these cell lines actually exist? It is possible, and we would love
to see evidence of it, but it seems much more likely to me that each of
these identifiers were born as typos before assuming a life of their own
in the scientific literature due to the sloppy fact-checking of [paper
mills](https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkac1139).

Because of non-verifiable cell lines and cell line contamination, the
biomedical literature abounds with experimental results that are
entirely irreproducible by other scientists, wasting the time of
editors, peer reviewers and researchers alike as well as the public
funds that support this research.

To learn more, you can check out [Jennifer Byrne's guest post in
Retraction
Watch](https://retractionwatch.com/2024/03/11/misspelled-cell-lines-take-on-new-lives-and-why-thats-bad-for-the-scientific-literature/)
or read our ~~preprint~~ \[UPDATE May 16, 2024\] newly-published paper:

Danielle J. Oste, Pranujan Pathmendra, Reese A. K. Richardson, Gracen
Johnson, Yida Ao, Maya D. Arya, Naomi R. Enochs, Muhammed Hussein,
Jinghan Kang, Aaron Lee, Jonathan J. Danon, Guillaume Cabanac, Cyril
Labbé, Amanda Capes Davis, Thomas Stoeger, Jennifer A. Byrne.
Misspellings or "miscellings"-non-verifiable cell lines in cancer
research publications. *Int J Cancer*. 2024; 1-12.
doi:[10.1002/ijc.34995](https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.34995){target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer noopener"}

A cell line is a population of cells that can be grown in a laboratory culture indefinitely.

Non-verifiable cell lines: immortal or imaginary?

Stephen Royle

Here is a summary of the info I gleaned from asking for recommendations
for the best human cell line. These were my criteria:

<figure class="wp-block-image size-large is-resized">
<img
src="https://i0.wp.com/quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Screenshot-2022-11-18-at-20.19.58.png?w=460&amp;ssl=1"
class="wp-image-2869" decoding="async" data-attachment-id="2869"
data-permalink="https://quantixed.org/2022/10/01/line-up-recommendations-for-the-best-human-cell-line/screenshot-2022-11-18-at-20-19-58/"
data-orig-file="https://i0.wp.com/quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Screenshot-2022-11-18-at-20.19.58.png?fit=1110%2C714&amp;ssl=1"
data-orig-size="1110,714" data-comments-opened="1"
data-image-meta="{&quot;aperture&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;credit&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;camera&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;caption&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;created_timestamp&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;copyright&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;focal_length&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;iso&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;shutter_speed&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;title&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;orientation&quot;:&quot;0&quot;}"
data-image-title="Screenshot-2022-11-18-at-20.19.58"
data-image-description="" data-image-caption=""
data-medium-file="https://i0.wp.com/quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Screenshot-2022-11-18-at-20.19.58.png?fit=300%2C193&amp;ssl=1"
data-large-file="https://i0.wp.com/quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Screenshot-2022-11-18-at-20.19.58.png?fit=640%2C412&amp;ssl=1"
srcset="https://i0.wp.com/quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Screenshot-2022-11-18-at-20.19.58.png?resize=1024%2C659&amp;ssl=1 1024w, https://i0.wp.com/quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Screenshot-2022-11-18-at-20.19.58.png?resize=300%2C193&amp;ssl=1 300w, https://i0.wp.com/quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Screenshot-2022-11-18-at-20.19.58.png?resize=768%2C494&amp;ssl=1 768w, https://i0.wp.com/quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Screenshot-2022-11-18-at-20.19.58.png?w=1110&amp;ssl=1 1110w"
sizes="(max-width: 640px) 100vw, 640px" data-recalc-dims="1" />
</figure>

For context, we currently use a number of human cell lines in the lab:
HeLa, RPE1, HCT116, SKOV3; as well as many others in the past: HEK293,
DLD-1, U2OS.

I consider HeLa to be the almost perfect cell line. They are nice for
imaging (great for biochemistry too), easy to culture and transfect...
unfortunately they have a weird karyotype, so gene editing is painful.
Plus, there's always pushback from people who say HeLa are strange and
not very representative of a "real cell"... a discussion for another day
perhaps. **So what cell line could be better?**

### **hTERT-RPE1** {#htert-rpe1 .wp-block-heading}

**Retinal Pigment Epithelial cell line** (hTERT immortalized)

<https://www.cellosaurus.org/CVCL_4388>

*Nishit Srivastava @Nishit24*

maybe RPE1

*Dr Rafal Czapiewski @RafalEstrella*

RPE1 are my favourite now!

*Fernando M. Valbuena @FernandoMValbu3*

I use RPE-1 cells regularly. They're fantastic for imaging, aren't tumor
derived, and have a stable karyotype. I use Neon electroporation for
transfection with very high efficiency even when using mini prepped DNA.
Electroporation is a better method than lipid-based reagents.

*Ewan MacDonald @EwanMac10292433*

Have you tried RPE1 cells?

*Andrii Gorelik @AndriiGorelik*

With PolyFect you can get \>50% transfection efficiency in RPE1

*Miguel Rz @MickeRzO*

RPE-hTERT 🥇

*Dr CJ Houldcroft @DrCJ_Houldcroft*

What about TERT'd fibroblast lines?

*Dr. Ceri Fielding @CeriFielding*

Not that easy to transfect by conventional means, unless you're
transfecting siRNA.

*Stephen Terry @Stephen17822072*

Hi Steve I think rpe-1 htert cells I got are human near diploid flat so
great for imaging transfect well for dna /siRNA the ones I have are puro
resistant only drawback

*Francesca Bottanelli @Fran_Bottanelli*

We successfully made KIs in MCF10A and RPE1 cells. They transfect well
with electroporation (NEPA gene).

### **ARPE-19** {#arpe-19 .wp-block-heading}

**Retinal Pigment Epithelial cell line** (spontaneous immortalized)

<https://www.cellosaurus.org/CVCL_0145>

*Costin Antonescu @CostinAntonescu*

We use ARPE19 for many applications (different from RPE1). Great for
membrane traffic imaging especially TIRF. Reasonable for transfection,
but drawback is they don't edit easily.

*Daniel Chauss @dchauss*

ARPE19 also has reported karyotype heterogeneity

<https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29476476/>

### **HFF** {#hff .wp-block-heading}

**Human foreskin fibroblast**

<https://www.cellosaurus.org/CVCL_XB54>

*Tim Feinstein @TimNFeinstein*

HFF cells have a lot of good properties and are more 'stem-like' than
most cultured lines, but if you don't like the transfection properties
of RPE-1 cells then they might not work.

*Caroline Clucas @Caroline_Clucas*

HFFs?

### **WI-26/WI-38** {#wi-26wi-38 .wp-block-heading}

**Fetal lung fibroblast**

<https://www.cellosaurus.org/CVCL_V826>

<https://www.cellosaurus.org/CVCL_0579>

*Ishier Raote @ishier_raote*

WI-26 or WI38?

*Julian Nüchel (PhD) @JNuchel*

That's what I would suggest! My favorite cell line! Perfect for
endocytosis, secretion and other intracellular trafficking pathways!
Generated plenty of KOs and OE cells. Transfection worked best for me
with Xtremegene HP from Roche/Merck

### **U2OS & COS-7** {#u2os-cos-7 .wp-block-heading}

**Bone sarcoma**

<https://www.cellosaurus.org/CVCL_0042>

**African green monkey kidney**

<https://www.cellosaurus.org/CVCL_0224>

*Hoang Anh Le (aka Anh), PhD @AnhHLe2702*

U2OS or COS7 (monkey but human siRNAs and CRISPRs work for these cells)

*Andy Moore @aaandmoore*

I've had mixed success with human siRNA/CRISPR in COS7.  I guess it's
dependent on the specific gene.  I've switched to just designing things
specifically for vervet, but then it's kind of annoying to have a tool
that only works for Vero/CV1/COS.

*Hoang Anh Le (aka Anh), PhD @AnhHLe2702*

I had one instance that the target siRNA didnt work for one gene in
COS7, but luckily for other genes they worked. So yes, it is gene
dependent.

*Hoang Anh Le (aka Anh), PhD @AnhHLe2702*

I see. I did have a bit of problem editing U2OS, but easier for COS7. I
also heard SKOV3 cells are really easy to culture too. My labmate used
SKOV3 and they seem to love them.

*Jonny Nixon-Abell @AbellJonny*

They aren't I'm afraid...which is a shame because damn they look good!
U2OS often aren't diploid either but more stable karyotype. Could use
the KOLF2.1 iPSC line, dont image so well, but meet your other criteria.

*John Petrini @JohnPetrini*

I would strongly advise against U2OS.  They are extremely unstable
karyotypically.  See:  PMC3400581

<https://europepmc.org/article/PMC/PMC3400581>

*Tyson V. Sharp @tyson_sharp*

U2OS? Massive nuclei and massive cytoplasm!

*Jullien Denis @JullienDenis1*

Try U2OS

### **Stem cells** {#stem-cells .wp-block-heading}

*David Drubin @DavidGDrubin*

For the reasons outlined here
(https://www.molbiolcell.org/doi/full/10.1091/mbc.e17-03-0183)
consider  WTC human stems.  Great protocols and a large catalog of
engineered cell lines available thanks to @AllenCellInst. You can
differentiate these cells into many other cell types (e.g., fibroblasts,
cardiomyocytes)

*Dr Agathe Chaigne @AgChaigne*

Human, not mammals? mESC are pretty stable karyotypically (am I making
up a word?) and I see a lot less division defects than hESC. They are
not that hard to culture/transfect/image.

*Max Gutierrez @maxgabgut*

Cell line and karyotype stable are not compatible I am afraid. As
suggested by others iPSC are an option that will not solve all your
problems. If you use them at the iPSC stage results can be different
from a fully differentiated cell. Good luck!

### **HT-1080** {#ht-1080 .wp-block-heading}

**Fibrosarcoma**

<https://www.cellosaurus.org/CVCL_0317>

*Graham Dellaire @DocDellaire*

HT1080 are great, big flat cells for microscopy. They are not diploid
but have a stable phenotype from the point of view of rearrangements but
do spontaneously become tetraploid if abused.

*Francesco Pasqualini @fspasqualini*

We love them but they also do like to crowl on top of each other which
is not ideal for all microscopy needs

*Aoqun James Song @AJamesSong*

How about HT1080?

### **MDA-MB-231** {#mda-mb-231 .wp-block-heading}

**Triple-negative breast cancer TNBC**

<https://www.cellosaurus.org/CVCL_0317>

*Aurélie Dobric @AurelieDobric*

I may be too late for answer but I haven't seen one cell line in the
answer below : MDA-MB231. They are gorgeous for live imaging.

*Shem @Shem_Darius*

Not sure it checks all those boxes, but look at mda-mb-231 cells if
you're into endosomes. They're huge!

*Sherif Ibrahim. MBBCH, MSc, PhD @444sherif*

Some authors reported difficulty in their transfection, but they worked
well in my hand. I am not sure about their karyotype but they are easy
to culture, and I believe they are great for microscopy.

### **DLD-1** {#dld-1 .wp-block-heading}

**Colorectal cell line**

<https://www.cellosaurus.org/CVCL_0248>

*Janardan Gavade @janardangavade*

Maybe Dld-1 cell line can be the answer!

*Melinda Beccari @MelsNeurons*

Many here in lab use DLD-1s! If I'm not mistaken they fit all the items
on your list. Let me know if you guys have questions about them or want
a vial. We've used SH-SY5Y and U2Os also but always with lentivirus or
nucleofection, not transfection.

### **MCF-10A** {#mcf-10a .wp-block-heading}

Breast cancer epithelial

<https://www.cellosaurus.org/CVCL_0598>

*Valentine Comaills @ValComaills*

MCF10A, great to work with. Media a bit weird but genomically stable.

*Francesca Bottanelli @Fran_Bottanelli*

We successfully made KIs in MCF10A and RPE1 cells. They transfect well
with electroporation (NEPA gene).

*THERY Manuel @ManuelTHERY*

and hard to transfect

*Valentine Comaills @ValComaills*

Lentivirus, retrovirus and siRNA were fine for me.. but nothing too
agressive as they are 'normal' cells and don't like to be messed up, and
end up to sense it and stop to grow.

### **HCT 116** {#hct-116 .wp-block-heading}

Colorectal cancer

<https://www.cellosaurus.org/CVCL_0291>

*대학원생 달토끼 @BunnyTheHuman\_*

How about HCT116?

*ChrisStaples @StaplesLab*

As well as the mutator phenotype, they are not so beautiful in
fluorescence microscopy.

*대학원생 달토끼 @BunnyTheHuman\_*

Although its small size, we use hct116 for PALM imaging.

*Graham Dellaire @DocDellaire*

I would stay a million miles away from HCT-116 due to MLH1 mutations and
hyper mutation phenotype. They are a different cell line every few
passages. Nearly every gene can accumulate point mutations.

*Graham Dellaire @DocDellaire*

For future reference (see Davis et al., 1998 Cancer Res.) since both
Cellosarus and Wikipedia fail to inform users that HCT116 are
MLH1-deficient...

<https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9485033/>

### **MRC-5** {#mrc-5 .wp-block-heading}

Lung fibroblast

<https://www.cellosaurus.org/CVCL_0440>

*Fausto Capelluto @FaustoCapelluto*

Have you tried MRC5? In my experience, they are very good for imaging
and easy to culture.

*Samantha Lewis @SamLewisPhD*

MRC5 have beautiful mitochondria but ER looks like cotton candy... IME

## Only the lonely: lines with just one recommendation {#only-the-lonely-lines-with-just-one-recommendation .wp-block-heading}

### **A-549** {#a-549 .wp-block-heading}

Lung cancer

<https://www.cellosaurus.org/CVCL_0023>

*SA @SSA07844173*

How about A549 cells?

### **CAL-51** {#cal-51 .wp-block-heading}

**TNBC cell line**

<https://www.cellosaurus.org/CVCL_1110>

*Jez Carlton @JezCarlton*

I use CAL-51, near diploid, transfect well, edit well, great for
imaging, divide every day. TNBC line with I think activating PI3K
mutation.

### **HIEC-6** {#hiec-6 .wp-block-heading}

**Intestinal epithelial**

<https://www.cellosaurus.org/CVCL_6C21>

*Dave Boucher @dave_boucher*

Hiec-6 cells . Intestinal epithelial cells, grow well , easy media
(optimum 4%fcs + egf)

### **HaCaT** {#hacat .wp-block-heading}

**Keratinocyte**

<https://www.cellosaurus.org/CVCL_0038>

*Polina Lishko @PolinaLishko*

HaCaT (human keratinocytes) are great for 1-3, but they are aneuploid.
Not sure how stable their karyotype is.

### **IMR90** {#imr90 .wp-block-heading}

**Lung fibroblast**

<https://www.cellosaurus.org/CVCL_0347>

*Samantha Lewis @SamLewisPhD*

IMR90. Normal karyotype, easy to transiently transfect, and high editing
efficiency. They do senesce after 15-20 passages though.

### **SUM159** {#sum159 .wp-block-heading}

**TNBC cell line**

<https://www.cellosaurus.org/CVCL_5423>

*Jeeyun Chung @JeeyunC*

We use SUM159 breast cancer cell line. Diploid, easy to KI and KO, okay
to transfect, beautiful ER structure for imaging!

*Ewan MacDonald @EwanMac10292433*

We use SUM159. They have nice trafficking, near diploid.

### **HEK293** {#hek293 .wp-block-heading}

**Kidney**

<https://www.cellosaurus.org/CVCL_0045>

*Tim Triche, Jr. @timtriche*

Presumably HEK293T is no good for microscopy of the sort you're doing?
Otherwise it's nice

### **Jurkat** {#jurkat .wp-block-heading}

**T-cell**

<https://www.cellosaurus.org/CVCL_0065>

*Candice @candice_ab*

Jurkat cells?

## Summary {#summary .wp-block-heading}

Inevitably the answers were a classic case of YMMV. One person's idea of
a cell line that's nice for imaging can be quite different from someone
else's. On top of all this, a wonderful cell line which doesn't express
the protein you are interested in (or do the thing you work on) is no
use to you at all.

Does the perfect cell line exist? The strongest contenders all had
drawbacks.

- RPE1 were the most popular suggestion. They're great but hard to
 transfect.
- U2OS great but karyotypically unstable.
- HCT116 again the genomic concerns raised by Graham are off-putting.

There were several lines that we haven't used and I'm keen for us to
try. CAL-51, HT1080 and stem cells are all on our list.

Thanks to everyone who replied, I learned a lot.

---

The post title comes from "Line Up" by Elastica which opens on their
eponymous debut LP.

Here is a summary of the info I gleaned from asking for recommendations for the best human cell line. These were my criteria:  For context, we currently use a number of human cell lines in the lab: HeLa, RPE1, HCT116, SKOV3; as well as many others in the past: HEK293, DLD-1, U2OS. I consider HeLa to be the almost perfect cell line.

Messaggi di Rogue Scholar

Non-verifiable cell lines: immortal or imaginary?

Line Up: recommendations for the best human cell line