Misidentified cell lines: failures of peer review, varying journal responses to misidentification inquiries, and strategies for safeguarding biomedical research.

IF 10.7 Q1 ETHICS
Ralf Weiskirchen
{"title":"Misidentified cell lines: failures of peer review, varying journal responses to misidentification inquiries, and strategies for safeguarding biomedical research.","authors":"Ralf Weiskirchen","doi":"10.1186/s41073-025-00170-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Continuous cell lines are indispensable in basic and preclinical research. However, cross-contamination, misidentification, and over-passaging affect the validity and reproducibility of biomedical results. Although there have been efforts to highlight this problem for decades, definitive prevention remains a challenge. The International Cell Line Authentication Committee (ICLAC) registry (version 13, 26 April 2024) lists nearly 600 misidentified or contaminated cell lines. The inappropriate use of such cells has led to countless publications containing invalid data, creating a ripple effect of wasted resources, misleading follow-up studies, and compromised evidence-based conclusions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The ICLAC registry was consulted to identify commonly misidentified cell lines. A literature search of PubMed was performed to identify recent papers using these lines in liver-related experiments. Four publications with questionable conclusions were highlighted, and the editors of the respective journals were informed with short comments or letters to the editor.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Reactions from journal editors varied widely. In two cases, the editors quickly published the comments, resulting in transparent corrections. In the third example, the editor conducted an internal investigation without immediately publishing a correction. In the fourth example, the journal declined to address concerns publicly.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Misidentified cell lines pose an ongoing threat to scientific rigor. Despite some responsible editorial interventions, the lack of universal standards fosters the dissemination of erroneous data. However, authors, reviewers, and editors have some important tools to prevent publications with misidentified cells by consulting available resources (e.g., ICLAC, Cellosaurus, Research Resource Identification Portal, SciScore™), and adopting consistent procedures to maintain research integrity.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":"10 1","pages":"12"},"PeriodicalIF":10.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12247328/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research integrity and peer review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-025-00170-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Continuous cell lines are indispensable in basic and preclinical research. However, cross-contamination, misidentification, and over-passaging affect the validity and reproducibility of biomedical results. Although there have been efforts to highlight this problem for decades, definitive prevention remains a challenge. The International Cell Line Authentication Committee (ICLAC) registry (version 13, 26 April 2024) lists nearly 600 misidentified or contaminated cell lines. The inappropriate use of such cells has led to countless publications containing invalid data, creating a ripple effect of wasted resources, misleading follow-up studies, and compromised evidence-based conclusions.

Methods: The ICLAC registry was consulted to identify commonly misidentified cell lines. A literature search of PubMed was performed to identify recent papers using these lines in liver-related experiments. Four publications with questionable conclusions were highlighted, and the editors of the respective journals were informed with short comments or letters to the editor.

Results: Reactions from journal editors varied widely. In two cases, the editors quickly published the comments, resulting in transparent corrections. In the third example, the editor conducted an internal investigation without immediately publishing a correction. In the fourth example, the journal declined to address concerns publicly.

Conclusions: Misidentified cell lines pose an ongoing threat to scientific rigor. Despite some responsible editorial interventions, the lack of universal standards fosters the dissemination of erroneous data. However, authors, reviewers, and editors have some important tools to prevent publications with misidentified cells by consulting available resources (e.g., ICLAC, Cellosaurus, Research Resource Identification Portal, SciScore™), and adopting consistent procedures to maintain research integrity.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

鉴定错误的细胞系:同行评议的失败,期刊对鉴定错误询问的不同回应,以及保护生物医学研究的策略。
背景:连续细胞系在基础和临床前研究中是不可或缺的。然而,交叉污染、误鉴定和交叉传代会影响生物医学结果的有效性和可重复性。尽管几十年来一直在努力突出这一问题,但明确的预防仍然是一项挑战。国际细胞系认证委员会(ICLAC)注册表(第13版,2024年4月26日)列出了近600个被错误识别或污染的细胞系。对此类细胞的不当使用导致了无数包含无效数据的出版物,造成了资源浪费的连锁反应,误导了后续研究,并损害了基于证据的结论。方法:参考ICLAC注册表来识别常见的错误识别细胞系。对PubMed进行文献检索,以确定最近在肝脏相关实验中使用这些细胞系的论文。突出了四份结论有问题的出版物,并向各自期刊的编辑通报了简短的评论或给编辑的信。结果:期刊编辑的反应差异很大。在两个案例中,编辑迅速发表了评论,导致了透明的更正。在第三个例子中,编辑进行了内部调查,但没有立即发表更正。在第四个例子中,《华尔街日报》拒绝公开回应担忧。结论:错误识别的细胞系对科学严谨性构成持续威胁。尽管有一些负责任的编辑干预,但缺乏普遍标准助长了错误数据的传播。然而,作者、审稿人和编辑有一些重要的工具,通过查阅可用资源(例如,ICLAC, Cellosaurus, Research Resource Identification Portal, SciScore™),并采用一致的程序来保持研究的完整性,来防止出版物中存在错误鉴定的细胞。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
5 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信