↓ Skip to main content

Genetic Profiling Reveals Cross-Contamination and Misidentification of 6 Adenoid Cystic Carcinoma Cell Lines: ACC2, ACC3, ACCM, ACCNS, ACCS and CAC2

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, June 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
87 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Genetic Profiling Reveals Cross-Contamination and Misidentification of 6 Adenoid Cystic Carcinoma Cell Lines: ACC2, ACC3, ACCM, ACCNS, ACCS and CAC2
Published in
PLOS ONE, June 2009
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0006040
Pubmed ID
Authors

Janyaporn Phuchareon, Yoshihito Ohta, Jonathan M. Woo, David W. Eisele, Osamu Tetsu

Abstract

Adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC) is the second most common malignant neoplasm of the salivary glands. Most patients survive more than 5 years after surgery and postoperative radiation therapy. The 10 year survival rate, however, drops to 40%, due to locoregional recurrences and distant metastases. Improving long-term survival in ACC requires the development of more effective systemic therapies based on a better understanding of the biologic behavior of ACC. Much preclinical research in this field involves the use of cultured cells and, to date, several ACC cell lines have been established. Authentication of these cell lines, however, has not been reported. We performed DNA fingerprint analysis on six ACC cell lines using short tandem repeat (STR) examinations and found that all six cell lines had been contaminated with other cells. ACC2, ACC3, and ACCM were determined to be cervical cancer cells (HeLa cells), whereas the ACCS cell line was composed of T24 urinary bladder cancer cells. ACCNS and CAC2 cells were contaminated with cells derived from non-human mammalian species: the cells labeled ACCNS were mouse cells and the CAC2 cells were rat cells. These observations suggest that future studies using ACC cell lines should include cell line authentication to avoid the use of contaminated or non-human cells.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 48 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 20%
Student > Master 8 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 12%
Professor 4 8%
Other 4 8%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 10 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 27%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 24%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 10%
Neuroscience 3 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 11 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 November 2021.
All research outputs
#3,763,141
of 22,687,320 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#46,324
of 193,653 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,587
of 111,160 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#155
of 516 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,687,320 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,653 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 111,160 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 516 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.