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

Research Integrity and Peer Review 10 (1) (2025)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

BackgroundContinuous 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.MethodsThe 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.ResultsReactions 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. ConclusionsMisidentified 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.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Morally Illicit Cells in Medical Research.Alan B. Moy - 2019 - Ethics and Medics 44 (6):3-4.
Resources, Valuation, Trust: Sharing in Stem Cell Research.Dan Santos, Joan Leach & Rachel A. Ankeny - 2025 - In Antoinette Fage-Butler, Loni Ledderer & Kristian Hvidtfelt Nielsen, Science Communication and Trust. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore. pp. 345-363.
Response to Byrnes and Furton.Mark T. Brown - 2009 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 19 (2):pp. 206-209.
Moral complicity in induced pluripotent stem cell research.Mark T. Brown - 2009 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 19 (1):pp. 1-22.

Analytics

Added to PP
2025-11-24

Downloads
29 (#1,623,236)

6 months
21 (#496,988)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references